Where does Firefly take place? by Hans

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
Did anyone read my statement that theres is a post on the main site - where I asked a writer whether Firefly took place in multiple systems or not... and he said that no one really thought about it or cared, but if he had to go with an answer he said that it did.

Either A.) ther isn't an aswer - the show is just not consistant enough to give you an answer because the writers weren't concerned with this -just the plot and storylines.

or B.)
FIREFLY TAKES PLACE IN MULTIPLE SOLAR SYSTEMS.

This argument has been going on since I joined this site - can we resolve this? Would it help if I went and found the actual statement and posted it here?

No need to get snarky. We all saw your post. The writer himself said he didn't know the answer, and was just giving his opinion.

We are having a polite discussion about what hypothesis we think is right based on what we see on screen, that's all. For some of us, the opinions of people outside the "reality" of the show (including writers who say they don't know the answer) are interesting but secondary. If you put more faith in that, fine.

And even if the producer's never came to their own conclusion about where the show took place, there's no reason we can't...you can agree or not, just don't try to shut down the debate.

(BTW, before I started this thread I checked to make sure there were no other recent discussions about it on this board. There weren't. And with 50+ responses, it's obviously an unresolved topic...)

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

Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:42 AM

SARAHETC

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
No need to get snarky.

(minor hijack)
But snarky is the fireflyfans.net browncoat's stock in trade!
(/minor hijack)

And like the reference to the Georgia system and stuff, who knows how they were planning to define system? When this question bogs me down, I think about Mal, in The Train Job, having just been thrown out the holographic window and calling Wash for backup with two huge planets/moons very visible over his shoulder. That's two whole other worlds, probably with their own customs and trade and everything. And if not the one they were on at the time, one of those bodies in sky is Ezra, where Mal and Wash eventually get kidnapped. That's a probably, some Niska triangulation.

System or systems, white dwarf or blue giant, NGC somethin' somethin' or the Ghost of Jupiter Nebula-- still plenty of stories.

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

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

Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
[B
System or systems, white dwarf or blue giant, NGC somethin' somethin' or the Ghost of Jupiter Nebula-- still plenty of stories.

Thanks for putting things in perspective...now, if only I can get that damn theme music out of my head! :)

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

Friday, October 24, 2003 6:50 AM

ZEKE023

Quote:

And even if the producer's never came to their own conclusion about where the show took place, there's no reason we can't...you can agree or not, just don't try to shut down the debate.

I don't mean to get snippy with you. I was running a firefly rpg, and this question was of no minor importance to the plot. So the "never making any progress toward a conclusion" about this debate frustrated me after a while. Sorry.

If we're going to debate this - let's address each other's comments and discuss.

First - let's not argue physics. If physics were acurate then Vira would be able to fire in a vacuum. Most modern guns have everything they need to fire in the shell(a Glock 9mm can fire in a vacuum or even under water). If many guns can do that now - how about 500 years in the future? Don't give me an argument about guns that are 500 years old being cheaper - that's bullshit. You ever try to buy a 500 year old weapon? They are priceless. So long as weapon technology just doesn't stop (which if you look at humanity is REALLY unfeasible) this doesn't make sense and so the physics of this particular world is not synonymous with our own (more than likely due to a lack of knowledge on behalf of the writers). So physics has no place in this argument. The basic gist of this is that Joss can tell the story however he damn well pleases. Planets can be way to far away from the sun and still support life; Guns can fire or not fire as he pleases; Faster that light travel can exist or not; a single solar system could have a hundred planets and still support life on all of them - real world physics do not apply! So put your text books away and focus on the script.

Second - if we're really going to argue this, let's not make anything up. Imagine what I could prove about our own world through science if I could simply make up stuff that sounded somewhat possible (I had an aquaintance that was expelled for that - they called it "data falsification") Let's stick to what we see and what we hear. That's how logical deduction works. I'm sure that the tooth fairy could be propelling the ships for all I know - but since I don't see her, I'm going to assume not.

You never see a bianary sun in the series - odds are that's cause there isn't one.

There are references to "systems," Planetary or Solar.

There are several quotes based that mention "whole galaxy of earths" - and similar ones. "several solar systems away" from Book.

Anybody got anything else to add to this list?

If you want to argue against me - don't tell me what you think. That doesn't disprove my argument - you have to disprove my statements and then supply your own that logically follow in their stead.

I don't know why I feel so passionately about this issue. Maybe I'm just a geek, but I want to make some progress here.

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

Friday, October 24, 2003 6:42 PM

CALDEEN

I belive in the multiple solar system and FTL travel. That doesnt mean that some Solar systems dont have a planet and a moon that have been terraformed. When in space Firefly uses her main engine for propulsion, but at take off and landing there are just the jets that Crawl came to know so well. This leads me to belive that the main engine is FTL.

In the RPG that I run it is a multiple solar system verse.

"Get a life?!" I am a gamer. I have LOTS of lives!

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

Saturday, October 25, 2003 4:03 PM

FREESOUP

Quote:
Originally posted by LuxLucre:
I'm going to throw out my theory viz-a-viz the question of the spacial system in Firefly one stellar system or a number of close solar systems.
I first posted this message to the GURPS Firefly Yahoo group on Feb 9, 2003 ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GURPS-Firefly)

I think it resonable that they are talking about a single star system, and would go further in postulating that the sun may likely be a blue star, since they are the hottest and consequently have the largest habitable zone for planets.

Check this site: http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/habzone.htm

Here are the important bits, In my opinion:
====================================
habitable zone (HZ): An imaginary spherical shell surrounding a star throughout which the surface temperatures of any planets present might be conducive to the origin and development of life as we know it. Also referred to as the ecosphere.

The HZ of a highly luminous star would in principle be very wide, its inner margin beginning perhaps several hundred million km out [Comment: Let's say the orbit of Mars] and stretching to a distance of a billion km or more [Comment: around the orbit of Jupiter].
However, this promising scenario is spoiled by the fact that massive, bright stars are much more short-lived than their smaller, dimmer cousins. In the case of the giant O stars and B stars, these very massive objects race through their life-cycles in only a few tens of millions of years-too quickly to allow even primitive life-forms to emerge.
========================================

The last speculation is moot in any case, seeing as we are actively terraforming planets, not waiting for them to develop life on their own. I seems to me that the habitable zone around a hot white or blue (O or B) sun would give us plenty of space to establish hundreds of planets that would support life, with no fear of their orbits crashing into each other.

Lux, that is exactly my view as well, and explains the "Blue Sun" company name. As well, moons around gas giants would explain the "hundreds" of Rim Worlds, particularly if there are six or seven Superjovian gas giants in a bigger, albeit younger solar system. Solettas can be used to focus light on each moon, thus no problem with sunlight and distance: build a bigger one to compensate the farher outsystem you are.

On a human timescale, the short-lived nature of a blue star like Rigel compared, say, with Bernard's Star or Betelgeuse is irrelevant: both will last longer than the time between ourselves and the dinosaurs.

Close enough for Alliance work.

BTW, did "Blue Sun" change its name from Halliburton or ENRON? Just askin'.

"There are none so blind as they who will not see.

...Hey! Who turned out the lights?"

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

Saturday, October 25, 2003 5:35 PM

ZAPHODB

I think Microsoft is probably one of many companies that Blue Sun evolved from...

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

Saturday, October 25, 2003 6:58 PM

KAYTHRYN

and Walmart.

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

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:

If you want to argue against me - don't tell me what you think. That doesn't disprove my argument - you have to disprove my statements and then supply your own that logically follow in their stead.

I don't know why I feel so passionately about this issue. Maybe I'm just a geek, but I want to make some progress here.

I want to make some progress as well. And as I said, part of the reason I think it takes place in a single system is because it feels right to me. This is entirely subjective, and I don't expect this to sway you or anyone else, just because I feel this way. And, although I'm getting more convinced the show takes place in a single system, I have several times above admitted that there is much evidence on both sides of the issue.

So lets's look at the points you raised.

Quote:

You never see a bianary sun in the series - odds are that's cause there isn't one.

I'm a bit of an astronomy geek, but not enough to say for certain that a star system has to be of one type or another to have a sufficiently large life zone. It wasn't me who claimed the system had to have a binary star. Maybe it does. Maybe it has a blue star (mentioned in another post above). Without a doubt the strongest evidence against the single system is the requirement of a huge life zone to hold all those planets.

However, because we are so earth-centric, we assume that, in a binary system, if you look up in the sky you will see two huge suns in the sky. But in a binary system the two suns may be many, many AUs away from each other. As you go further out in our system, our sun looks more an more like just another star. It would be very easy to believe that, in a binary system, only one sun looks as big as our sun at any one time, and the other sun looks just like another star.

Quote:

There are references to "systems," Planetary or Solar.

Actually, there seems to be only one reference to a system that I can find that actually makes it on screen, the "Georgia System" quote discussed above. But, as I have yet to see all episodes yet, I may be wrong.

Quote:

There are several quotes based that mention "whole galaxy of earths" - and similar ones. "several solar systems away" from Book.

First of all, as mentioned above, the "several solar systems away" line was changed when the episode was shot to "sectors". The fact that the producers felt it important enough to change is, in my mind, significant.

You are right that there are some lines (like the "whole galaxy of earths") that seem to point to the many systems theory. There are other lines that point the other way. The first piece of evidence I gave at the start of this thread, where Book talks about settling "a system" and the independents going out to the edges of "the system", seems to support the one system theory. When we have two conflicting pieces of evidence like this, we have to decide which one seems more solid, and which one could be hyperbole. To me, "a whole galaxy of earth's" sounds more like a line that could be an exageration then using the very specific, singular term "system".

(It's true, we don't know what he means by "system", but we can make an educated guess. Personally I've never heard of a "star cluster system" or "galaxy system" or anything else that implies a system has more than one star).

You want to dismiss all subjective arguments, and I don't blame you. Certainly, when we talk about the absence of an obervable FTL drive, or the absence of star systems, that doesn't prove anything. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

BUT...the question becomes one of suspension of disbelief. Does one find it believable that, after 14 episodes, there's no evidence of an FTL drive. And no discussion of multiple "star systems" or "solar systems" or suns. And no evidence of alien life, despite the fact they are supposedly spread out across the milky way.

For me, these things are enough to lean me in the "unisystem" direction.

(Sorry I drifted back into subjective reasoning. I know you were trying to make a list of facts. I guess I would argue that it's not always clear what's a fact and what's an opinion).

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 3:53 AM

ZEKE023

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

I want to make some progress as well. And as I said, part of the reason I think it takes place in a single system is because it feels right to me. This is entirely subjective, and I don't expect this to sway you or anyone else, just because I feel this way. And, although I'm getting more convinced the show takes place in a single system, I have several times above admitted that there is much evidence on both sides of the issue.

So lets's look at the points you raised.

Kick Ass!

I gave some thought to what you said - and came up with a few new things.

FTL travel
Actually, thinking on the points you brought up - this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I am reminded of several episodes where they make reference to fuel and being short on it. A FTL drive would probably run off of a reactor and not need to be refueled but once a year or less - that being said, the writers may not know that (As I said above) and therefore could be a pointless fact. Still, it's a vote for non-FTL travel.

planets
does a "life zone" still apply when we throw terraforming into the mix? well who's to say that they don't employ some sort of greenhouse gas that traps the heat in a planet's atmosphere making a planet warm enough to sustain life even at far distances from the sun. I mean -- Terraforming kind of eliminates the whole purpose of a "life zone" - because we can use technology to create whatever environment we need. It is science fiction - it doesn't have to make sense (see Hiesenberg Regulators).

You may thought you weren't going to sway me to the single system idea - but you may very well have.

-Z

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

I want to make some progress as well. And as I said, part of the reason I think it takes place in a single system is because it feels right to me. This is entirely subjective, and I don't expect this to sway you or anyone else, just because I feel this way. And, although I'm getting more convinced the show takes place in a single system, I have several times above admitted that there is much evidence on both sides of the issue.

So lets's look at the points you raised.

Kick Ass!

I gave some thought to what you said - and came up with a few new things.

FTL travel
Actually, thinking on the points you brought up - this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I am reminded of several episodes where they make reference to fuel and being short on it. A FTL drive would probably run off of a reactor and not need to be refueled but once a year or less - that being said, the writers may not know that (As I said above) and therefore could be a pointless fact. Still, it's a vote for non-FTL travel.

planets
does a "life zone" still apply when we throw terraforming into the mix? well who's to say that they don't employ some sort of greenhouse gas that traps the heat in a planet's atmosphere making a planet warm enough to sustain life even at far distances from the sun. I mean -- Terraforming kind of eliminates the whole purpose of a "life zone" - because we can use technology to create whatever environment we need. It is science fiction - it doesn't have to make sense (see Hiesenberg Regulators).

You may thought you weren't going to sway me to the single system idea - but you may very well have.

-Z

Cool!

As for discussions of fuel, there is this dialogue from Serenity (which I felt was way too subjective too include in my earlier arguments):

MAL
How long 'til we reach Persephone?

WASH
Three or four hours.

MAL
Can we shave that?

WASH
(shakes his head)
We're down to the wire on fuel cells.
We run hot, we might not even make it.

This is one of the few onscreen discussions about the Serenity’s main drive (presumably) and travel times. It appears that by “running hot” and using more fuel they can get somewhere faster. Those characteristics would certainly be found in a non-FTL conventional thruster system. They could also be true of certain types of FTL drives. However, it does seem to rule out certain other types of FTL drives (stargates, wormholes, jump drives) in which travel speeds may not be increased by “running hot” and burning more fuel. Or, in the reactor type power source you mentioned.

As for the life zone vs. terraforming thing, it seems to fit in perfectly with Firefly that there is an ideal life zone (the core worlds, where the alliance is based, and the planets are lush and naturally earth-like) and outside of this a "marginal" life zone (the rim worlds/border worlds, where terraforming can make a planet a little bit like earth but never as comfortable).

Slightly off topic - I'm in the middle of reading Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot", which discusses a lot of issues related to life on other planets and human colonization. It's an amazing book, and I'd suggest it to anyone interested in the topic...

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 10:44 AM

Quote:
Here's how it is.

The Earth got used up. So we moved out and terraformed a whole new galaxy of Earths.

Seems conclusive to me. Plus, there's no way you could have that many planets in a single system. There's just too many, and they're all just too warm. We've got nine, and only three of those could be anywhere near habitable.

JK

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 11:05 AM

RAW53X

did any of you watch 2010 when jupiter becomes another sun.

isent travling faster than light impossible. warp in star trek is onley possoible because it warps space as apposed to moveing through it.

if thay can produse artifishal gravity thay probley could warp space.

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 11:05 AM

RAW53X

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 11:38 AM

Oh, and I forgot to add that Book's references to the edge of the system are more likely meaning the system as in the Alliance system, rather than the solar system.

JK

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

Monday, October 27, 2003 8:56 PM

SOUTHERNMERC

Someone mentioned "observable FTL drive" in a post. What do you mean by "observable?" Is that observable as in we see them jump in speed and starlines streak past (which is a bit of creative license in the first place, as the distances involved in space travel mean that you won't pass by stars that quickly unless you are going over at least 10k times C)? Or do you mean some sort of fancy scifi looking thing attached to the hull that they call the "star drive" or some such?

Since no one alive has gone faster than light, how FTL travel looks is pretty much anyones guess. As is the look of the drive system itself. Who knows? It may be that a proper FTL drive looks like a ships screw made out of waffles (picture it a minute).

I'm still leaning toward the many star systems theory on the fact that the life zone for a star probably won't be big enough for the 70+ planets listed in the show. But since we haven't been anywhere but our little moon yet, I really have no basis for that belief. Oh well.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:09 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by raw53x:
did any of you watch 2010 when jupiter becomes another sun.

Yes, was cool, but I felt the physics was a bit off. Jupiter is quite small, too small to self ignite. And would need about 10 more Jovian masses to ignite on its own.

Quote:
isent travling faster than light impossible. warp in star trek is onley possoible because it warps space as apposed to moveing through it.

This is what was thought previously. Because approaching the speed of light means an increase in energy required, till at the speed of light, one requires an infinite amount of energy to achieve it.

But, mass (and energy) warp space. The trick is to get them to warp it just right to allow a faster than light bubble to form and move. And the math for that has already been worked out and debated.

The debate about Alcubierre's Warp Drive has been interesting. The paper itself shows that warp drive is possible, even if Einstein is right. The debate against it has been more on technical issues, on the amount of mass/energy and the nature of that mass/energy, and whether they violate some other set of theories, such as those of Quantum Mechanics.

Quote:
if thay can produse artifishal gravity thay probley could warp space.

This is true. It is also something that has kinda bothered me since I started studying General Relativity (on my own, not a college student). There is no such thing as "artifical gravity"

In GR, gravity is not a force. It is a "pseudo-force" An object will move in a geodesic. If the geodesic is curved compared to "flat space" then the object will change path as if it were being accelerated by a force. When there is no force being applied, just the oddness of the geometry.

On the Earth, you are trying to follow a geodesic path. But the ground (and specifically the repuslive force of the various molecules in your feet and the ground) prevents you from doing that. So you feel gravity, and stay attached to the ground.

On a spinning space station, your natural geodesic is at a tangent to the arc you are traveling in. But the space station floor is blocking your path in exactly the same way that it occurs on the planet. So in a sense, you are not creating "artifical gravity" but the real thing.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:46 AM

ZEKE023

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
As for discussions of fuel, there is this dialogue from Serenity (which I felt was way too subjective too include in my earlier arguments):

MAL
How long 'til we reach Persephone?

WASH
Three or four hours.

MAL
Can we shave that?

WASH
(shakes his head)
We're down to the wire on fuel cells.
We run hot, we might not even make it.

This is one of the few onscreen discussions about the Serenity’s main drive (presumably) and travel times. It appears that by “running hot” and using more fuel they can get somewhere faster. Those characteristics would certainly be found in a non-FTL conventional thruster system. They could also be true of certain types of FTL drives. However, it does seem to rule out certain other types of FTL drives (stargates, wormholes, jump drives) in which travel speeds may not be increased by “running hot” and burning more fuel. Or, in the reactor type power source you mentioned.

Seems to me that the quickest way to get somewhere in space is to constanty accelerate 1/2 way and then deccelerate the other 1/2. Maybe "running hot" is accelerating and therefore using fuel - where as otherwise you just continue at your current speed (due to the frictionlessness of space).

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

Friday, October 31, 2003 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:

Seems to me that the quickest way to get somewhere in space is to constanty accelerate 1/2 way and then deccelerate the other 1/2. Maybe "running hot" is accelerating and therefore using fuel - where as otherwise you just continue at your current speed (due to the frictionlessness of space).

Yes, that's what I assumed. To get somewhere faster you need both a faster "outgoing" burn to accelerate, and and equal amount at the other end to deaccelerate. Or, if your destination has an atmosphere, you can try atmosphereic braking. Either way, more fuel = more thrust = faster speed.

Or, as Newton said, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

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

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:46 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE

The new dvd sheds a little light on this question with a deleted scene which says

Select to view spoiler:

that there are 70 earths in THE solar system

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

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
The new dvd sheds a little light on this question with a deleted scene which says
Select to view spoiler:
that there are 70 earths in THE solar system

Cool! There's some deleted scenes that support the one system theory, others that don't. I'm not sure if we can put much weight on deleted scenes when it comes to making an argument one way or another, but as a supporter of "one system" I'm very happy to hear this. 70 worlds is a much more resonable figure than 150, or any of the others.

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 4:54 AM

Having been through the DVD I noticed an interesting commentary on Serenity's drive system by one of the ship's designers. The main drive appears to be some sort of fusion propulsion system, using a fusion explosion to move the ship through space. Since such a drive system would be strictly conventional, its further evidence of the absence of any faster than-light drive...which supports the "one system" theory. Of course, this does not rule out there being yet another drive system for FTL travel.

(I think this was mentioned on the featurette on Serenity, though I may be wrong).

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

Monday, December 22, 2003 10:29 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
This is true. It is also something that has kinda bothered me since I started studying General Relativity (on my own, not a college student). There is no such thing as "artifical gravity"

In GR, gravity is not a force. It is a "pseudo-force" An object will move in a geodesic. If the geodesic is curved compared to "flat space" then the object will change path as if it were being accelerated by a force. When there is no force being applied, just the oddness of the geometry.

On the Earth, you are trying to follow a geodesic path. But the ground (and specifically the repuslive force of the various molecules in your feet and the ground) prevents you from doing that. So you feel gravity, and stay attached to the ground.

On a spinning space station, your natural geodesic is at a tangent to the arc you are traveling in. But the space station floor is blocking your path in exactly the same way that it occurs on the planet. So in a sense, you are not creating "artifical gravity" but the real thing.

The 'gravity' created by the rotating space station model is artificial gravity. It is artificial because gravity is a property of matter, but the centripetal gravity is a property of motion. They are two different things. The mass making up the rotating spacestation has gravity associated with it, albeit very small in comparison to a planet. You can calculate this gravity from simple physics. You can also calculate this centripetal force generated by a rotating space station using similar physics. Now General Relativity does not really say they are the same thing, but rather says that an observer will not be able to tell them apart under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean they are the same, but rather implies they are different, and the difference has to do with the frame of reference. In the planet case, the gravity exist in an inertial frame of reference, but in the rotating spacestation case, the gravity exist only in a non-inertial frame of reference.

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

Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:42 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The 'gravity' created by the rotating space station model is artificial gravity. It is artificial because gravity is a property of matter, but the centripetal gravity is a property of motion. They are two different things. The mass making up the rotating spacestation has gravity associated with it, albeit very small in comparison to a planet. You can calculate this gravity from simple physics. You can also calculate this centripetal force generated by a rotating space station using similar physics. Now General Relativity does not really say they are the same thing, but rather says that an observer will not be able to tell them apart under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean they are the same, but rather implies they are different, and the difference has to do with the frame of reference. In the planet case, the gravity exist in an inertial frame of reference, but in the rotating spacestation case, the gravity exist only in a non-inertial frame of reference.

Au contrarie. The frame of reference on a planet's surface is NOT inertial, since the planet's surface is preventing objects from following geodesics. Just like the walls of your spinning space station. There really is no difference between the two. In both cases you are blocked from traveling inertially, i.e. following a geodesic. In both cases the reason is the repulsion (on the atomic level) between your feet and the floor. And in both cases, the prevention from traveling geodesically means the frames you are in are not inertial.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, December 23, 2003 6:01 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Au contrarie. The frame of reference on a planet's surface is NOT inertial, since the planet's surface is preventing objects from following geodesics. Just like the walls of your spinning space station. There really is no difference between the two. In both cases you are blocked from traveling inertially, i.e. following a geodesic. In both cases the reason is the repulsion (on the atomic level) between your feet and the floor. And in both cases, the prevention from traveling geodesically means the frames you are in are not inertial.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

You're missing the point, I think. It doesn't matter what the frame of reference of the surface is. What matters is that the gravity on the space station only exists in a non-inertial frame of reference. If you were an observer and you were out at space not moving and far enough away from any gravitation source that you could be said to be in a purely inertial frame of reference. AND both the earth and the space station were also far away from any gravitation source and not moving, so that they could be said to be in a inertial frame of reference. THEN would there be gravity on the space station? No (not appreciably.) BUT there would be gravity on earth. Because gravity is a property of matter, and it exists on earth regardless of the earth's inertial state. When the space station is in an inertial frame of reference an observer inside the space station will NOT experience any gravity. The same is not true for the Earth and that is the difference. General Relativity does NOT say they are the same, only that an observer WITHIN those respective frames of reference would not be able to tell them apart, given certain conditions. THAT is what relativity means. Gravity is relative to your frame of reference. If it wasn't it would be called General Samness, or otherwise known as Newtonian physics.

Not an easy topic to grasp, I know. I've been there. It's real easy to think that General Relativity is telling you that the two cases are the same, but that's not really what it says.

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

Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:21 PM

ZACHSMIND

Over at http://www.gloomyjoe.com/firefly GloomyJoe's there's this list of all the locations mentioned in the series, from Ariel to Whitefall. When one sees all this listed together, it becomes clear we're dealing with a multiple star environment. I don't know if it would be classified as a single system with multiple stars, or if this part of space happens to contain many star systems which are relatively close together, but this is not just one star with all these planets and moons revolving around them, ALL of which happen to be revolving within that stars ecosystem. In our own solar system, only Earth and moon are comfortably inside the ecosphere. Venus and Mars fall outside the range of distance from the sun that allows sustainable human life.

Further, there is the Georgia System, which includes Paradiso. At one point in the episode The Train Job, Georgia is specified not as THE star system from which all the planets and moons exist, but ONE of the star systems that the Serenity frequents. Therefore, there is at least one other star system one might refer to. Otherwise it would be unnecessary to refer to the Georgia system by a name. They'd just call it THE system, or not refer to it at all.

One could argue that the Georgia system is named, as opposed to the star system that used to be home, which includes the Earth That Was. However, that still wouldn't sufficiently explain how in the course of half a season, over twenty locations were mentioned, about half of which were planets, with no forseeable end in sight. There is a reference to "core planets" as opposed to the outer rim. This also lends credence to a single star system, but it's physically not possible to have this many planets revolving inside the ecosphere of the same solar system. They'd run into each other.

Unless terraforming also included physically moving the celestial bodies around inside the solar system and keeping them from running into one another, but if they had that kinda knowledge, why didn't they just fix The Earth That Was?

------------------------------
"Always thought you needed a bit more evidence to convict a man than the color of his coat."

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

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:15 AM

KYOBONITSUKI

okay - first thanks to zaphodb for bumping me over to this line.

one of the things i've noticed is that people seem to be arguing the smae points over and over - not adding much to the mix... let me try to change that.

to sum up:
as aired, book says "sectors" in the message.
the georgia system could be a planetary system and is not by itself proof of a multisystem setting.

no as for new stuff... in serenity the ship passes the reaver vessel at slow relative speeds - which seems to indicate that serenity was NOT in FTL drive on the way to the rim from persephone. also despite vowing to steer clear of niska in train job, mal and wash get nabbed on the planet/moon niska's station orbits in war stories. and i just checked my dvds it looks to be the exact same world in both episodes. now half a planet seems to be not much in the way of avoidance - seems much more like asking for it. zoe seemed to deduce that niska was who got them - book and jayne seemed to take a bit to come to that conclusion. that seems odd if the scale of the series is beyond a single star system.

bio-zones - that little band of lifegiving warmth around a sun. we'd need a big mother star for this. even if it's not 70 worlds it is still a whole bunch. a bigger star gives you a bigger biozone perhaps large enough to contain more than ours which contains three. its a point of argument but mars and venus can be said to be at the limits of our biozone. given a good greenhouse atmo mars would be rather comfortable. thin venus's atmo and it may be habitable.

now in a big old biosphere we could have say 6 planets. maybe more. and a bunch of moons, especially if we have a super jovian. but the point here is that the moons have to be big ass moons. even with the magic of terraformation you need enough mass to hold on to the atmosphere - which means worlds about the size and mass of mars. granted there is gravity manipulation in firefly but manipulating a worlds gravity to enable it to hold on to an atmo is beyond belief. terraforming would be a one time thing... artificially making a planet more dense would be a continual use of energy.

if the firefly drive is an ftl drive than i would say that the verse is a small cluster of stars - maybe 100 light years across... assuming 3-5 planets a system and a little over 20 systems.

if the firefly drive is not an ftl drive but an efficient space drive (the engine pods being a less efficient scramjet) then we'd be looking at one big ass system. i personally like the romance of this.

it seems that no matter which path you chose you have to sacrifice some disbelief. i choose to dismiss the proplems around extending a biozone and holding on to atmos. i just like it better and to me it fits the dramatic circumstances better - we've not seen nor heard anything about hyperspace or ftl - and the fact that mal and wash dove into niskas backyard without a catious word to that effect. i believe they were giveing niska a wide berth by staying away from his half of the world - and to me that indicates a smaller verse.

just thoughts and bad spelling

cheers

matt

p.s. let it be known that i for one, greatly enjoy the character of kaylee - even tho polls show that most of you don't!

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

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:15 PM

LUNATIKAT

"p.s. let it be known that i for one, greatly enjoy the character of kaylee - even tho polls show that most of you don't!" writes matt

I love Kaylee, too. I wanna see her grow some courage over time. In fact, I just want to watch everyone grow and evolve, and see their backstories as well.

lunatikat - not long for this world (if I can hitch a ride to another)

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

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023
Actually, thinking on the points you brought up - this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I am reminded of several episodes where they make reference to fuel and being short on it. A FTL drive would probably run off of a reactor and not need to be refueled but once a year or less - that being said, the writers may not know that (As I said above) and therefore could be a pointless fact. Still, it's a vote for non-FTL travel.

Yes, it does. See that pretty color stuff that flies out the sides and back of the tail when the firefly transports "go really fast" in space? That's where it's spewing out fusion material in order to boost itself to "really fast". That's why it's also "really bad" to do in an atmosphere, as you can see in Serenity. You're dumping fusion material, which wouldn't be so bad in space, but give it something it can react with like a breathable atmosphere and you get all kinds of fun chain reactions. It amounts to popping a little sun out the back long enough to hurl you at the speed you need. Without the gravity of a sun to keep the expansion in check, you get that kick.

Since you're dumping fuel for that kick, you're going to run out.

It's definitely a reactor, because they say ships run on reactors in the series, including mentioning the reactor of the TransU thingy the reavers were using in Serenity. It's definitely fusion, because Joss says so on the DVD.

Sheesh.

Quote:
no as for new stuff... in serenity the ship passes the reaver vessel at slow relative speeds - which seems to indicate that serenity was NOT in FTL drive on the way to the rim from persephone.

Another thing on the DVD, he says this was a blunder, but done for dramatic purposes. Yes, they should be going really, really, really fast - but that wouldn't be very exciting. Just pretend they slowed down to check each other out.

Sheesh again.

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

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:22 PM

http://www.thespacesite.com/space/future/fusion.php

A pretty complete description, in layman's terms, of fusion drive.

I like this one better, though:

http://www.thespacesite.com/space/future/fission.php#frag

As to the galaxy vs. solar system debate, I tend towards the single system. If the star is a blue giant or supergiant, you get a rather large habitable zone, and if you have a bunch of gas giants with several moons each, you can terraform the "over 70 earths" Mal mentions. Maybe a few rocky planets further in as well.

To add to the evidence:

One of the Blue Hand Men at the end of The Train Job says "We didn't come 86 million miles to investigate the theft of some band-aids" or some such. He says it as if it's something of an inconvenience to travel less than 1 AU. Based on the fact that the theft was still fresh in the Alliance officer's mind, however, I'd say that the trip took no more than a few hours.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

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

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
To add to the evidence:

One of the Blue Hand Men at the end of The Train Job says "We didn't come 86 million miles to investigate the theft of some band-aids" or some such. He says it as if it's something of an inconvenience to travel less than 1 AU. Based on the fact that the theft was still fresh in the Alliance officer's mind, however, I'd say that the trip took no more than a few hours.

That's it? That's your BIG EVIDENCE? Gosh, that's so much more convincing than the whole "Galaxy of new Earths" line, isn't it?

Some people, especially important people, will often feel inconvenienced to travel across town. You could easily put that in a modern situation and change "86 million miles" to "across town". Most likely, the writer just wanted a number that sounded really big to the audience and didn't actually bother looking up how big that number should be. This happens all the time in sci-fi, especially in those offshoots where the science isn't the focus like it's not in Firefly.

It's a galaxy, the whole galaxy. A big solar system is just plain silly and doesn't fit anything about the show. Why bother unifying everything or even fighting unification if you could just hop to the next solar system. After all, they did that to get away from Earth when it was all used up, didn't they? I don't think there's anyone out there who would argue that Firefly takes place in our solar system, so everyone agreed that these people are capable of interstellar travel, right?

They make references to "Core Worlds" and "Rim Worlds". You don't think those mean the core of the habitation zone or the rim of it, do you? Most likely, they mean galactic core and galactic rim. Rim and core are terms to describe galaxies, not solar systems.

The War of Unification wouldn't have taken very long at all if they were fighting it out on moons of gas giants. You get a foothold on one with your big Alliance army, and that's all you'd need to squish the less advanced, less populated independents. There has to be a good to great deal of distance for them to have make it a fight.

Also, I doubt Patience would be so cavalier about the Alliance and owning half of the world she's on if she was travelling in near the same planetary orbital field as all of the Alliance worlds. She has to have a pretty good deal of distance between her and where they actually care about.

Then there's the reavers, who are men who supposedly go mad on the edge of space. Notice that this edge of space just so happens to have planets in it, planets with people on them. We know this because they attack borderworlds. Think this kind of thing could exist with the habitable zone stuff? Eh? That would put reavers right on top of the Alliance people, since that zone is fairly narrow for people who have been able to do interstellar flight. If the reavers were on the edge of this HZ, then the Alliance would be well versed on them, which they're obviously not as seen in Bushwacked.

Then there's the whole bit about there being no alien life in the galaxy, which is mentioned several times through the run of the show. They'd be hard pressed to make the case that there weren't any aliens at all in the galaxy when they've only been to two or slightly more solar systems, don't you think? Even Mal seems to buy this idea that there are no aliens, something which could be widely debated if people hadn't been all over the galaxy.

And about Niska, of course Mal had to go near him. Otherwise, there'd be no episode, would there? Niska doesn't really move off that station, and Mal goes everywhere. Just because he went to where the buyers for the medicines were doesn't mean that's not avoiding him, either. After all, he did it on the far side of the planet from Niska's station, as opposed to doing it on Niska's station. If you can avoid someone in your own town or even section of town, I think you can easily say that the far side of a planet is avoiding them.

About the sectors thing, if we're talking about a bunch of moons around gas giants around one big star, sector jurisdiction would be pointless, because those gas giants would all be moving, wouldn't they? Most likely, they'd be moving at different speeds and perhaps at different angles as well. So, the very fact that Book states "eight sectors away" even tells you that we're not only talking about defined regions but also talking about some kind of fixed sector distance. That's two things you just can't have in one solar system.

Lastly, if it were one big star, like a blue giant, then why the heck is it always a little yellow star? They have the CG to remove said star and put in a big blue/green/whatever star like they've done to put planets in the sky for the moon worlds.

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 9:42 AM

Chill, dude. It doesn't really matter. There's evidence for both theories, and when you come right down to it, the only thing that matters is that the stories work.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 11:05 AM

SPIKESPIEGEL

Well, there's this:

I can believe that FTL will someday be invented. I can accept that for the sake of an SF tee-vee show. I actually find that easier to believe than fake gravity on Serenity, but that's me. Thus, I can believe that Firefly involves many solar systems.

I cannot believe that, in the future, it will be possible to have dozens of planets in a single solar system all within a life zone that seems to give at least part of nearly every one of them a California climate.

And even then, it would take fantastic leaps in propulsion (though not FTL) to put even planets in the same solar system days or hours apart, so the one-system hypothesis STILL requires you to accept really, really fast space ships. Since you're makin' that leap anyway, why not give up, accept FTL, and have a handful of probably clustered star systems.

"Bang."

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 4:07 PM

Here's my more or less complete rundown of the evidence for one system. Proponents of other theories, feel free to do the same for yours, or maybe I'll do it myself later. Either way, this is not an attack on your beliefs. We're all Browncoats here and this discussion is academic anyway.

From "Serenity":

"DOBSON
I hear a lot of the border moons are
in bad shape. Plagues, and famine...

ZOE
Well, some of that's exaggerated, and
some of it ain't. All those moons --
just like the central planets,
they're as close to Earth-That-Was as
we could make 'em: gravity, atmosphere,
and such, but... "

Note that it's "border moons" rather than "border planets". This could mean that the only true planets that have been settled are further in, while the folks on the rim live mostly on the moons of gas giants.

"DOBSON
(pointing the gun at
Mal again)
Get the hell away from that weapon!
You think I'm a complete backbirth?
You're carrying a fugitive across
interplanetary borders, and you
think I actually believe you're
bringing medical supplies to
Whitefall? As far as I care,
everyone on this ship is culpable."

Note that it's "interplanetary borders" rather than "interstellar borders". Sounds like each planet with all its moons comprises a legal jurisdiction, making this equivalent to transporting a fugitive across state lines in the modern USA.

From "The Train Job":

"BOOK
Gave up everything to free his sister from that
place. Go from being a doctor on the Central Planets to hiding on the fringes of the system. There's not many would do that."

"THE system", not "the galaxy or" "A system".

"ENSIGN
All network alert. Cargo theft. Medical shipment
lifted off a train in the Georgia System en route
to Paradiso."

Compare the following:

"Medical shipment lifted off a train in the Sol system en route to Sacramento."

"Medical shipment lifted off a train in California en route to Sacramento."

Which makes more sense?

"OTHER MAN
We didn't fly 86 million miles to track down
a box of bandaids, Colonel."

From "Our Mrs. Reynolds" (deleted scene):

"MAL

More than 70 little Earths spinnin' around this (galaxy/system), and the meek have inherited not a one."

Can't remember if he says galaxy or system, and the TV's in use right now. However, if he's referring to a literal galaxy, 70 inhabited worlds sounds pretty low. On the other hand, if you have a system like Castor 6, consisting of 3 binary pairs, you'll have plenty of room for that many planets/moons. Consider that Jupiter has something like 16 moons all by itself...

We also have Joss's comment in "Serenity: the Tenth Character" that the ship is propelled by "a fusion explosion". Basically, you're setting off a nuclear reaction behind the ship to propel it. Ain't no way that's gonna push you past lightspeed.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
Note that it's "border moons" rather than "border planets". This could mean that the only true planets that have been settled are further in, while the folks on the rim live mostly on the moons of gas giants.

Could mean, but why would it mean if they were all living in the same solar system. We're talking about people who have accomplished interstellar travel. Even if you're doing the generational ship thing, which is dubious considering you'd have to move all of Earth to a new solar system in a bunch of huge ass ships. Now, if you have FTL, you can move them off a bit at a time, making trips. Which makes more sense?

But back to what you said. They also use the term rim for these worlds, as in on the edge of the galaxy. Ferrying stuff to and from a moon in even the largest solar system would be a nothing task for people who've done instellar travel. After all, there's no star out there big enough to have dozens of light years of gravitational pull, and that's what a solar system requires to work. It's also the distance between Earth and anything big enough to actually be this fabled super solar system.

Quote:
"DOBSON
(pointing the gun at
Mal again)
Get the hell away from that weapon!
You think I'm a complete backbirth?
You're carrying a fugitive across
interplanetary borders, and you
think I actually believe you're
bringing medical supplies to
Whitefall? As far as I care,
everyone on this ship is culpable."

Note that it's "interplanetary borders" rather than "interstellar borders". Sounds like each planet with all its moons comprises a legal jurisdiction, making this equivalent to transporting a fugitive across state lines in the modern USA.

How exactly does this support your idea? Planets have a degree of local automony. This could be of any size, anywhere. Likewise, in the United States, we also have county borders. You cross so many counties, and it becomes a matter for the state police, rather than a county agency. We don't know Dobson's jurisdiction, do we? He could very well be a sector cop, like the ones seen in The Message.

Quote:
From "The Train Job":

"BOOK
Gave up everything to free his sister from that
place. Go from being a doctor on the Central Planets to hiding on the fringes of the system. There's not many would do that."

"THE system", not "the galaxy or" "A system".

System can also mean the governing body, i.e. the Alliance. Note he doesn't say the solar system.

Quote:
"ENSIGN
All network alert. Cargo theft. Medical shipment
lifted off a train in the Georgia System en route
to Paradiso."

Compare the following:

"Medical shipment lifted off a train in the Sol system en route to Sacramento."

"Medical shipment lifted off a train in California en route to Sacramento."

Which makes more sense?

Why say, Georgia System if there weren't other solar systems?

Quote:
"OTHER MAN
We didn't fly 86 million miles to track down
a box of bandaids, Colonel."

Already been covered.

Quote:
From "Our Mrs. Reynolds" (deleted scene):

"MAL

More than 70 little Earths spinnin' around this (galaxy/system), and the meek have inherited not a one."

Can't remember if he says galaxy or system, and the TV's in use right now. However, if he's referring to a literal galaxy, 70 inhabited worlds sounds pretty low. On the other hand, if you have a system like Castor 6, consisting of 3 binary pairs, you'll have plenty of room for that many planets/moons. Consider that Jupiter has something like 16 moons all by itself...

Depends on when they got started, doesn't it? We already know they're still doing the terraforming and settling of planets. They're still moving settlers around. Not to mention the fact it's a lot easier to find habitable(terraformable) planets in a variety of solar systems as opposed to finding one solar system with enough planetary bodies to have 70 terraformed planets/moons with more bodies in the process of being terraformed.

Quote:
We also have Joss's comment in "Serenity: the Tenth Character" that the ship is propelled by "a fusion explosion". Basically, you're setting off a nuclear reaction behind the ship to propel it. Ain't no way that's gonna push you past lightspeed.

Okay, so first you guys were claiming there's no reactor. Now that reactor mechanism won't work? Eh? Guess what, it would be enough. We're talking about dropping a little sun out the back and riding the push from that.

A hydrogen bomb, one circa the 1960s, can output 2.1x10^17 joules of energy. The speed of light is 2.8x10^8 m/s. A joule is defined as the energy required to move a 2g mass 1 meter/sec. Just sticking with Newton(ignoring some of the relativity stuff, which obviously has to happen since there's no time dialation going on), we're talking about pushing 1,500,000kg to the speed of light with just an ancient hydrogen bomb. That's 1653 tons to the speed of light just by harnessing a crude H-Bomb's power output. I'm sure a Firefly's fusion reactor is a little more powerful than that.

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:11 PM

Hmmmm... I think that's the problem - that is,
if you ignore that 'relativity' stuff. Lorenz's
equations specifies that the mass of an object
traveling close to light speed becomes close
to infinite. Specifically, the faster an object
travels an near light speed, the more massive
it becomes and the larger the force required
to accelerate it. This is the reason why almost
every single SciFi show out there uses 'space-folding' type technology to travel 'faster
than light'. You can't physically accelerate
an object that has a rest mass anywhere close
to the speed of light, but if you fold up space,
then you have a short cut and create the 'appearance' of faster than light travel.

Happy New Year!

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:
Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
Note that it's "border moons" rather than "border planets". This could mean that the only true planets that have been settled are further in, while the folks on the rim live mostly on the moons of gas giants.

Could mean, but why would it mean if they were all living in the same solar system. We're talking about people who have accomplished interstellar travel. Even if you're doing the generational ship thing, which is dubious considering you'd have to move all of Earth to a new solar system in a bunch of huge ass ships. Now, if you have FTL, you can move them off a bit at a time, making trips. Which makes more sense?

But back to what you said. They also use the term rim for these worlds, as in on the edge of the galaxy. Ferrying stuff to and from a moon in even the largest solar system would be a nothing task for people who've done instellar travel. After all, there's no star out there big enough to have dozens of light years of gravitational pull, and that's what a solar system requires to work. It's also the distance between Earth and anything big enough to actually be this fabled super solar system.

Quote:
"DOBSON
(pointing the gun at
Mal again)
Get the hell away from that weapon!
You think I'm a complete backbirth?
You're carrying a fugitive across
interplanetary borders, and you
think I actually believe you're
bringing medical supplies to
Whitefall? As far as I care,
everyone on this ship is culpable."

Note that it's "interplanetary borders" rather than "interstellar borders". Sounds like each planet with all its moons comprises a legal jurisdiction, making this equivalent to transporting a fugitive across state lines in the modern USA.

How exactly does this support your idea? Planets have a degree of local automony. This could be of any size, anywhere. Likewise, in the United States, we also have county borders. You cross so many counties, and it becomes a matter for the state police, rather than a county agency. We don't know Dobson's jurisdiction, do we? He could very well be a sector cop, like the ones seen in The Message.

Quote:
From "The Train Job":

"BOOK
Gave up everything to free his sister from that
place. Go from being a doctor on the Central Planets to hiding on the fringes of the system. There's not many would do that."

"THE system", not "the galaxy or" "A system".

System can also mean the governing body, i.e. the Alliance. Note he doesn't say the solar system.

Quote:
"ENSIGN
All network alert. Cargo theft. Medical shipment
lifted off a train in the Georgia System en route
to Paradiso."

Compare the following:

"Medical shipment lifted off a train in the Sol system en route to Sacramento."

"Medical shipment lifted off a train in California en route to Sacramento."

Which makes more sense?

Why say, Georgia System if there weren't other solar systems?

Quote:
"OTHER MAN
We didn't fly 86 million miles to track down
a box of bandaids, Colonel."

Already been covered.

Quote:
From "Our Mrs. Reynolds" (deleted scene):

"MAL

More than 70 little Earths spinnin' around this (galaxy/system), and the meek have inherited not a one."

Can't remember if he says galaxy or system, and the TV's in use right now. However, if he's referring to a literal galaxy, 70 inhabited worlds sounds pretty low. On the other hand, if you have a system like Castor 6, consisting of 3 binary pairs, you'll have plenty of room for that many planets/moons. Consider that Jupiter has something like 16 moons all by itself...

Depends on when they got started, doesn't it? We already know they're still doing the terraforming and settling of planets. They're still moving settlers around. Not to mention the fact it's a lot easier to find habitable(terraformable) planets in a variety of solar systems as opposed to finding one solar system with enough planetary bodies to have 70 terraformed planets/moons with more bodies in the process of being terraformed.

Quote:
We also have Joss's comment in "Serenity: the Tenth Character" that the ship is propelled by "a fusion explosion". Basically, you're setting off a nuclear reaction behind the ship to propel it. Ain't no way that's gonna push you past lightspeed.

Okay, so first you guys were claiming there's no reactor. Now that reactor mechanism won't work? Eh? Guess what, it would be enough. We're talking about dropping a little sun out the back and riding the push from that.

A hydrogen bomb, one circa the 1960s, can output 2.1x10^17 joules of energy. The speed of light is 2.8x10^8 m/s. A joule is defined as the energy required to move a 2g mass 1 meter/sec. Just sticking with Newton(ignoring some of the relativity stuff, which obviously has to happen since there's no time dialation going on), we're talking about pushing 1,500,000kg to the speed of light with just an ancient hydrogen bomb. That's 1653 tons to the speed of light just by harnessing a crude H-Bomb's power output. I'm sure a Firefly's fusion reactor is a little more powerful than that.

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Hmmmm... I think that's the problem - that is,
if you ignore that 'relativity' stuff. Lorenz's
equations specifies that the mass of an object
traveling close to light speed becomes close
to infinite. Specifically, the faster an object
travels an near light speed, the more massive
it becomes and the larger the force required
to accelerate it. This is the reason why almost
every single SciFi show out there uses 'space-folding' type technology to travel 'faster
than light'. You can't physically accelerate
an object that has a rest mass anywhere close
to the speed of light, but if you fold up space,
then you have a short cut and create the 'appearance' of faster than light travel.

Is it really so stunning that a show that has a ten piece kitchen set in their dining room in the middle of the ship, cups hanging on hooks, plates in a cupboard, and so forth, would ignore relativity? They ignore the Law of Inertia, so why not?

They also ignore the whole Law of Gravity as well, as seen in Out of Gas. The ship's dead in the water, but WHOOPS, it still has gravity. That means basically they're just ignoring the thing. Ship has gravity in it, outside there's no gravity.

Just accept that some science is actually ignored for aesthetics. The old time wooden table and chairs are more important for the setting than worrying about that silly inertia thing, so you get tables and chairs.

However, you obviously can't ignore the fact that many of the constructs of the setting, such as the fact reavers kinda have to be really, really, really, really far away from where the Alliance cruises around for them to exist. They even make a point of saying that and pointing it out numerous times in the show. So, we're talking phenominal distances, not something tiny like a solar system. Anything else is about as silly as claiming the Earth is flat.

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

Thursday, January 1, 2004 12:11 AM

Not sure how the constructs in the show
lead to the conclusions that the concepts
of inertia and gravity are ignored.

But STR is just part of the landscape
of scientific truth. Only 3rd rate shoddy
fantasy show would choose to ignore it
- likewise with inertia and gravity
(if it was actually ignored). Pick one,
it's either SciFi or fantasy. It stops
being a SciFi when science is ignored
without a credible explanation.

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Hmmmm... I think that's the problem - that is,
if you ignore that 'relativity' stuff. Lorenz's
equations specifies that the mass of an object
traveling close to light speed becomes close
to infinite. Specifically, the faster an object
travels an near light speed, the more massive
it becomes and the larger the force required
to accelerate it. This is the reason why almost
every single SciFi show out there uses 'space-folding' type technology to travel 'faster
than light'. You can't physically accelerate
an object that has a rest mass anywhere close
to the speed of light, but if you fold up space,
then you have a short cut and create the 'appearance' of faster than light travel.

Is it really so stunning that a show that has a ten piece kitchen set in their dining room in the middle of the ship, cups hanging on hooks, plates in a cupboard, and so forth, would ignore relativity? They ignore the Law of Inertia, so why not?

They also ignore the whole Law of Gravity as well, as seen in Out of Gas. The ship's dead in the water, but WHOOPS, it still has gravity. That means basically they're just ignoring the thing. Ship has gravity in it, outside there's no gravity.

Just accept that some science is actually ignored for aesthetics. The old time wooden table and chairs are more important for the setting than worrying about that silly inertia thing, so you get tables and chairs.

However, you obviously can't ignore the fact that many of the constructs of the setting, such as the fact reavers kinda have to be really, really, really, really far away from where the Alliance cruises around for them to exist. They even make a point of saying that and pointing it out numerous times in the show. So, we're talking phenominal distances, not something tiny like a solar system. Anything else is about as silly as claiming the Earth is flat.

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

Thursday, January 1, 2004 12:38 AM

CONGOCHRIS

We once believed that all-powerful beings were responsible for throwing lightning bolts, changing the seasons, driving the sun across the sky, and earthquakes. We once believed that the earth revolved around the sun. We once believed that the earth was flat, and that sailing too far, you'd go right over the edge. We once believed that Man was not meant to fly. We once believed that the speed of sound was an insurmountable barrier.

Knowing all this, is FTL travel really that unlikely? Human beings are amazingly inventive creatures. Just give us some time....

No offense to any purists, but does it have to be completely explained? If I'm going somewhere, I don't pop off with "I'm going to go get in my vehicle, which is powered by an internal combustion engine running on a petroleum based ignitible liquid fuel moving pistons in a chamber to rotate a crank, capable of speeds up to 90 miles an hour in it's current configuration and go to the mall." Nope, I just say "I'm going to the mall."

And remember, when something really off the wall, or unexplainable by any law of common sense happens, it can all be explained away with "Because it's in the script!"

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

Thursday, January 1, 2004 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Not sure how the constructs in the show
lead to the conclusions that the concepts
of inertia and gravity are ignored.

But STR is just part of the landscape
of scientific truth. Only 3rd rate shoddy
fantasy show would choose to ignore it
- likewise with inertia and gravity
(if it was actually ignored). Pick one,
it's either SciFi or fantasy. It stops
being a SciFi when science is ignored
without a credible explanation.

Remember Serenity when they did that "Crazy Ivan"? What exactly do you think that would do to all that stuff that's not nailed down in the ship? And there's a lot that's not nailed down.

It's kind of funny that later on they mention artificial gravity in The Message, but in Out of Gas, it just works even though the ship is unpowered. But they also say that planet gravity does odd things with artificial gravity, but when the firefly transport does the ivan in Serenity, then the full burn straight up, we see none of that. So, they just kind of ignore the science because it gets in the way of the stories.

I don't really have a problem with it. After all, it's either that or doing something goofy like Star Trek did by coming up with "inertia dampners". There's also the thing where the vast majority of sci-fi shows and movies have sound in space and ships also bank to turn, so it's not like all of them adhere specifically to science.

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

Thursday, January 1, 2004 7:48 AM

There is a huge difference between completely
ignoring science in a fantasy and coming up
with possible scientific solutions to a
physics constraint - SciFi.

There are many many real honest to earth inventions based on/inspired by these "goofy" SciFi inventions - Satellites, GPS, cellphones, automated doors and light sensors. That's partly what SciFi is - Science that isn't real (yet) but within the realm of possibility.

And I don't quite exactly understand why you would think inertial dampeners and gravity plating are "odd" and "goofy" when FF, as you say, completely ignores all these wacko real science as gravity...

I think it just completely up ends the advancement of our society as a whole when we have writers for a SciFi show who doesn't even think about some of the basis for their stories. One of the base tenants of writing fiction is to suspend disbelief in such a way as to ground it in some established set of principles: whether it's fantasy (completely invent your own set of rules) or SciFi. SciFi should be grounded in some sort of Science. Without a somewhat solid scientific base, you might as well be writing a fantasy - or worst, a space opera - or maybe even worst, a space soap.

Yuck.

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Not sure how the constructs in the show
lead to the conclusions that the concepts
of inertia and gravity are ignored.

But STR is just part of the landscape
of scientific truth. Only 3rd rate shoddy
fantasy show would choose to ignore it
- likewise with inertia and gravity
(if it was actually ignored). Pick one,
it's either SciFi or fantasy. It stops
being a SciFi when science is ignored
without a credible explanation.

Remember Serenity when they did that "Crazy Ivan"? What exactly do you think that would do to all that stuff that's not nailed down in the ship? And there's a lot that's not nailed down.

It's kind of funny that later on they mention artificial gravity in The Message, but in Out of Gas, it just works even though the ship is unpowered. But they also say that planet gravity does odd things with artificial gravity, but when the firefly transport does the ivan in Serenity, then the full burn straight up, we see none of that. So, they just kind of ignore the science because it gets in the way of the stories.

I don't really have a problem with it. After all, it's either that or doing something goofy like Star Trek did by coming up with "inertia dampners". There's also the thing where the vast majority of sci-fi shows and movies have sound in space and ships also bank to turn, so it's not like all of them adhere specifically to science.

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

Thursday, January 1, 2004 12:21 PM

I haven't ruled out the possibility that we've discovered FTL travel by 2517, but just because we have a technology doesn't mean it's going to be in common use. Raise your hand if you have a particle accelerator in your backyard. Way I figure it, we came up with maybe 10-20 FTL ships when we realized Earth wouldn't last too much longer. These ships were sent to scout out likely star systems, then report back. Once we had selected our likeliest prospect, we reused the FTL drives on some transport ships, built some new ones, and started heading out. Once the exodus was complete, the transports were scrapped for parts. Since FTL drives were not necessary for traversing the system, most ships don't have 'em.

Also, it's entirely possible to have over 70 habitable worlds inside a large star system, provided you have some nice bright stars. Sol, our sun, has a habitable zone extending from 0.95 AU to 1.37 AU. A blue giant or supergiant star could have a much larger habitable zone, extending several AUs. If you have several gas giants in the HZ, each with several rocky moons, you could potentially have over 100 terraformable worlds.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

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

Thursday, January 1, 2004 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
I haven't ruled out the possibility that we've discovered FTL travel by 2517, but just because we have a technology doesn't mean it's going to be in common use. Raise your hand if you have a particle accelerator in your backyard. Way I figure it, we came up with maybe 10-20 FTL ships when we realized Earth wouldn't last too much longer. These ships were sent to scout out likely star systems, then report back. Once we had selected our likeliest prospect, we reused the FTL drives on some transport ships, built some new ones, and started heading out. Once the exodus was complete, the transports were scrapped for parts. Since FTL drives were not necessary for traversing the system, most ships don't have 'em.

Even at the speed of light, we're still talking years to get anywhere. 10-20 drives wouldn't be enough to move billions of people.

Quote:
Also, it's entirely possible to have over 70 habitable worlds inside a large star system, provided you have some nice bright stars. Sol, our sun, has a habitable zone extending from 0.95 AU to 1.37 AU. A blue giant or supergiant star could have a much larger habitable zone, extending several AUs.

If you have several gas giants in the HZ, each with several rocky moons, you could potentially have over 100 terraformable worlds.

You're talking 70+ Earth sized rocks in that zone.And honestly, I doubt that a gas giant could exist in the HZ just because of the proximity to the star itself, too much energy bouncing around. It would definitely have to be a specialized case.

Then you have the problem with those gas giants and their own gravity affecting one another. The same force that holds those moons in orbit, all those Earth sized ones, would also be pulling on one another, pulling on each other's moons, and so on. To find something stable like that.. Heck, Jupiter has 300 times the mass of earth, so you know it can't really be that close to anything else of close to or equal size. Packing four to six of these in 1AU worth of radius is a recipe for problems.

Now, given all the specialized cases we're talking about - big huge star with a large HZ, 70+ planets/moons of Earth size(you can't really terraform gravity), bunchs of gas giants in close relation to one another, and so on and so forth.. Well, the odds of finding anything like that even remotely close to Sol is so far out of the realm of possibility, you might as well just go ahead and concede the fact that we're talking about humans that have spanned all over the galaxy.

Even 10-20 scout ships would have a lot of trouble finding such a thing. We're talking about a 60,000 light year radius. Given those distances, a scout would have to actually GO there using ultra-super FTL just to make sure everything is honkey-dory there because you can't rely on telescopes, radio or otherwise, because things could have changed a lot in all those years.

You're talking about covering about 11,309,733,553 square light years worth of area. With 10 to 20 ships? Even at 100 times the speed of light and ignoring relativity effects like time dialation, assuming only one star per square light year and all are equal distance from one another and they scouts are using the most efficient mapping technique ever created, you're talking about taking 57 BILLION years to map out the galaxy with 20 ships - 10 times longer than the sun has fuel left.

Neat, eh?

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

Thursday, January 1, 2004 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:

Even at the speed of light, we're still talking years to get anywhere. 10-20 drives wouldn't be enough to move billions of people.

Re-read... 10-20 to do a survey, reuse the drives plus build some more to get there.

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:

You're talking 70+ Earth sized rocks in that zone.And honestly, I doubt that a gas giant could exist in the HZ just because of the proximity to the star itself, too much energy bouncing around. It would definitely have to be a specialized case.

Can you back that up? I admit, I don't know the probability of a gas giant forming in (or moving into) an HZ.

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:

Then you have the problem with those gas giants and their own gravity affecting one another. The same force that holds those moons in orbit, all those Earth sized ones, would also be pulling on one another, pulling on each other's moons, and so on. To find something stable like that.. Heck, Jupiter has 300 times the mass of earth, so you know it can't really be that close to anything else of close to or equal size. Packing four to six of these in 1AU worth of radius is a recipe for problems.

Again, reread my post. A blue giant or supergiant would have SEVERAL AUs worth of HZ. If you consider the existence of systems like Castor 6, which consists of 3 binaries, (2 pairs of blue giant/red dwarf and one pair of red dwarfs) you have multiple HZs, so you can split the gas giants between them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:

Even 10-20 scout ships would have a lot of trouble finding such a thing. We're talking about a 60,000 light year radius. Given those distances, a scout would have to actually GO there using ultra-super FTL just to make sure everything is honkey-dory there because you can't rely on telescopes, radio or otherwise, because things could have changed a lot in all those years.

Nah. You identify the star systems that are in reach of us getting there with our FTL drives, then prioritize by likelihood of supporting human life.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 5:54 PM

SPIKESPIEGEL

Regarding the presence of gravity in "Out of Gas":

I think I already said I would have a bigger problem with "artificial gravity" than I do with FTL. But, since I'm willing to accept the convenience of gravity on spaceships in Firefly, I'm also willing -- just bloody barely -- to note that when the ship was "out of gas," there were still lights, albeit low-level emergency lights.

So I posit this: Stupidly, or for an unnamed technical reason, the emergency batteries, or whatever, power lights and gravity before they power atmosphere. That's bloody insane, unless you posit that somehow recycling atmo costs a LOT more power than the artificial grav. So Serenity has emergency batteries that are strong enough to run lights and grav, and radios, and other minor things, but not enough to filter air.

Presumably, sometime after Mal died, the batteries would've run down, and lights, grav and radio would've gone too, together or one by one.

I dunno, though. I was building a spaceship, I'd make air a pretty high priority. Rather breathe in the dark than see myself asphyxiating. Maybe that's just me.

"Bang."

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 6:27 PM

Well... Strictly Scifi-SciFi goes, we can reach out further and try and rationalize it in some insane manner like how STfans used to on the oooolder Analog pieces - or you can chalk it up to bad writing, bad SciFi writing anyways. Hey, it's the first season, things tend to be rough for writers in the first season as they get taugh how to write real SciFi and backup the stories. Sometimes the story suffer, sometimes it's ok inspite of those huge gaps... Check out some of the more rabid fans sites out there declaring war on bad physics in SciFi shows.

Quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
Regarding the presence of gravity in "Out of Gas":

I think I already said I would have a bigger problem with "artificial gravity" than I do with FTL. But, since I'm willing to accept the convenience of gravity on spaceships in Firefly, I'm also willing -- just bloody barely -- to note that when the ship was "out of gas," there were still lights, albeit low-level emergency lights.

So I posit this: Stupidly, or for an unnamed technical reason, the emergency batteries, or whatever, power lights and gravity before they power atmosphere. That's bloody insane, unless you posit that somehow recycling atmo costs a LOT more power than the artificial grav. So Serenity has emergency batteries that are strong enough to run lights and grav, and radios, and other minor things, but not enough to filter air.

Presumably, sometime after Mal died, the batteries would've run down, and lights, grav and radio would've gone too, together or one by one.

I dunno, though. I was building a spaceship, I'd make air a pretty high priority. Rather breathe in the dark than see myself asphyxiating. Maybe that's just me.

"Bang."

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

Saturday, January 3, 2004 3:36 PM