Sign Up | Log In
GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
The "Everyone is Right Theory" on Firefly Planets
Monday, March 1, 2004 4:10 AM
JAVIDRHO
Monday, March 1, 2004 4:23 AM
HANS
Quote:Originally posted by JavidRho: Hi all, I've been following all of the treads on the subject of "single vs. multiple solar system" over the past year, and just last night, I think I came up with one answer that might make everyone happy (not possible, I know). Forgive me if this has already been stated, but in all of my reading, I have not seen this take on the subject. --- the "Everyone is Right" theory --- What if there are multiple star systems, but Serenity only flies around one particular sun? This would allow for 70 or more planets (settled by humans) and also allow for Serenity to not need FTL drive (she can only visit the planets in her solar system). (stuff cut)
Monday, March 1, 2004 10:31 AM
GATORMARC
Monday, March 1, 2004 11:00 AM
LINDLEY
Monday, March 1, 2004 6:10 PM
RANGER
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:02 AM
DRAKON
Quote:Originally posted by Hans: One of the reasons I disliked the multiple systems theory is that so many sci-fi shows ignored the significant and major problems associated with FTL travel. They just assumed that warp speed (or whatever) was commonplace in their universe.
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Drakon: Sigh, and around and around we go. First off, new research shows that FTL may not be as problematic as you think it might be. It is even allowed for under General Relativity. The "significant and major problems" are not that signficant, at least in the theoretical sense, and boil down to a question of technology and understanding how to achieve the effect.
Quote:Originally posted by Drakon: Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:40 AM
SINGULARITY
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hans: As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store. It presents unique problems which require unique solutions - and for me, when I see Firefly, it seems quite clear to me that the writers were thinking the same way. Certainly they have been willing to break many other cliches seen on sci-fi shows. Other people see different things.
Quote:Quote:Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.
Quote:Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.
Quote:And, if you are correct that the level of superscience required to have multiple worlds in a single system is around the same as the level needed for FTL, then that certainly does not rule out the single system theory. In my mind it strengthens it, since there's so much other evidence in favour of one-system.
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 4:07 AM
CHRISTHECYNIC
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 5:48 AM
IAMJACKSUSERNAME
Well, I'm all right. - Mal
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 7:37 AM
SHINY
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 8:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Shiny: I'm relatively sure that Joss & co. don't give a rat's pee-goo about this level of technical detail/debate and even if the show had gone on for several seasons, they would probably never have addressed it directly, so it would always remain a 'religious' issue among those who feel a need to rationalize or justify everything in the show to such a degree.
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 9:27 AM
KASUO
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1:21 PM
GROUNDED
Quote:Originally posted by Hans: As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store. It presents unique problems which require unique solutions - and for me, when I see Firefly, it seems quite clear to me that the writers were thinking the same way.
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 7:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Hans: You claim that the creators would never address this issue at any time, which I completely disagree with. This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact). I'm sure it wasn't the only scientific aspect of the show the creators considered, and this attention to detail is part of that other 1% of why I like the show. And I'll continue to debate the issue as long as I like, thank you very much.
Wednesday, March 3, 2004 4:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hans: Quote:Originally posted by Shiny: I'm relatively sure that Joss & co. don't give a rat's pee-goo about this level of technical detail/debate and even if the show had gone on for several seasons, they would probably never have addressed it directly, so it would always remain a 'religious' issue among those who feel a need to rationalize or justify everything in the show to such a degree. Whatever. As I've said in many other posts, 99% of why I enjoy the show has absolutely nothing to do with scientific or technical issues, and I'm sure most people (on any side of this issue) feel exactly the same. Debating this kind of thing is as much an intellectual exercise as anything else. It's the story, the characters, the drama that are most important to me, and in no sense whatsoever is this a "religious issue I need to justify to such a degree". That's a ridiculous and totally unsupported statement.
Quote:You claim that the creators would never address this issue at any time, which I completely disagree with. This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact). I'm sure it wasn't the only scientific aspect of the show the creators considered, and this attention to detail is part of that other 1% of why I like the show. And I'll continue to debate the issue as long as I like, thank you very much. Hans
Wednesday, March 3, 2004 4:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Grounded: All this talk about FTL suddenly being not only possible but inevitable makes me somewhat uneasy. To have an FTL-enabled society colonising the galaxy within the next 500 years is more than a long stretch of the imagination. Of course you can always fudge that by stipulating that an astounding, and unusually premature, technical breakthrough was made in 2274 - but that's not scientific extrapolation, that's dramatic license. I think there is a nice equal balance of both in Firefly.
Wednesday, March 3, 2004 4:43 AM
RANGRBOB
Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:58 PM
BBAY
Thursday, March 4, 2004 11:23 PM
AJ
Quote:Originally posted by Drakon: The primary difference between science and religion (according to me) is that science uses observation and logic to arrive at models of how the world works and what it contains, etc. The scientific method.... In principle, anyone can make a scientific observation, or experiment and come up with a viable theory.
Quote:Originally posted by Drakon: Religion uses appeal to authority, or references subjective data. The problem with subjective data is not that it might be wrong, is that there is no objective way to tell if it is true or not.
Thursday, March 4, 2004 11:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by bbay: I'm afraid that FTL is the only correct theory. Based not on current scientific possibility, but purely on the plot of the show. You can't "keep pushing further out" when you're in a single solar system. You can't plot a course "off the alliance radar" in a single solar system. You can't be out of range of even present day lightspeed communication in a single solar system. (We can still talk to the pioneer spacecraft.) A single solar system is just too small to have the "wild west" themes of FF. Imagine "40,000 firefly's still flying" in one solar system, that's way crowded. And that's just a single class of ship. At the level of technology in FF, a single system would quickly be completely saturated by civilization.
Quote:Originally posted by bbay: Also, it's germane to point out that the big solar system theory usually postulates a mode of travel that is "conventional, but better". Proponents of this theory fail to take into account that even travel between planets, on the timescales that we see in the show, present technical difficulties well into the realm of the fantastical. The amount of propellent and energy that would be required to burn from one planet to another, even planets in similar orbits, in eight or ten hours is so outlandish that you really might as well allow FTL travel, from a standpoint of how it violates the laws of physics as we know them.
Quote:Originally posted by bbay: And the jump gate theory doesn't hold up either. Such gates would become alliance chokepoints that would make hiding fugitives, smuggling or eluding the authorities basically impossible.
Friday, March 5, 2004 12:09 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Drakon: It is more scientific extrapolation these days than you might think. FTL looks more promising these days, we actually have a theory that allows for it, without actually creating any "rubber" science to get it to work. I have heard of several groups who are working through the mathematics, and trying to figure out how to build it today. (Well in the next few years) One even has submitted papers to LANL, and has a yahoo group. It may not be like MIT or Cal Tech kind of folks, but then neither were Wilber and Orville.
Friday, March 5, 2004 1:08 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AJ: I think 'the only correct theory' is perhaps a little too dismissive of other possibilities.
Quote: Why can't you keep pushing out, or stay away from Alliance radar in a single solar system?
Quote: Quote:Originally posted by bbay: And the jump gate theory doesn't hold up either. Such gates would become alliance chokepoints that would make hiding fugitives, smuggling or eluding the authorities basically impossible. Indeed they would (this has the potential for dramatic plot development - talking purely aesthetically), but in a crowded system there would be so much traffic it would be impractical to police them quite that thoroughly, whereas in my less crowded system our Firefly crew may never need to use them.
Friday, March 5, 2004 1:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Grounded: Single photons have been teleported - but does anyone genuinely believe we'll be teleporting humans within 500 years? I'm not disputing the validity of any FTL research, but having theories and making advances are two entirely different things.
Friday, March 5, 2004 2:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by bbay: Quote:Originally posted by AJ: I think 'the only correct theory' is perhaps a little too dismissive of other possibilities. I'm very sorry, I didn't mean it like that at all. I am, in fact, a fan of hard sci-fi that takes place in a single solar system. What I'm suggesting is that there are several plot elements in FF that pretty much require FTL as a premise, even though we may wish otherwise.
Quote:Originally posted by bbay: Quote:Originally posted by bbay: And the jump gate theory doesn't hold up either. Such gates would become alliance chokepoints that would make hiding fugitives, smuggling or eluding the authorities basically impossible. Indeed they would (this has the potential for dramatic plot development - talking purely aesthetically), but in a crowded system there would be so much traffic it would be impractical to police them quite that thoroughly, whereas in my less crowded system our Firefly crew may never need to use them.
Quote:Originally posted by bbay: Making the science argument, I wonder if anyone has done the math on the BSS theory.... We could, in theory, compute the size of star necessary to produce a habitable zone that could contain 70 planets (with the afore mentioned inverse square law). (Anyone here know the math to do this? I'll try to give it a shot, but I'm more of a formal systems guy, I've forgotten all my physics training.) That sciency stuff is all beside the point anyway. The main point that eliminates the light speed barrier is that if you can only travel below light speed, then you're never out of sight. And that's contradicted by the canon. (I'll stick by the FTL theory, but if Joss himself came down and contradicted it, I'd still watch. I LOVE this show.)
Friday, March 5, 2004 4:06 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AJ: Well, strictly speaking, science makes use of hypothesis, and the proving (or otherwise) of theories, in order to advance. Generally, as you say, it's based on observation and logic, but has plenty of room for imagination and inspiration as well. Pedantic? Me?
Quote: Bit of a generalisation about subjective data, but I guess you're talking about unverifiable data (e.g. 'one person sees a unicorn, it's an hallucination' type of thing). For me, this is the primary difference - the accessibility of the data; not having to "take somebody's word for it" (or take it on faith). After all, if we discover science behind magic, it ceases to be magical (e.g. If 100,000 people see a unicorn, it's a horse with a horn). After all that, I think we're basically saying the same thing, just from a different angle.
Friday, March 5, 2004 4:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Drakon: Now once technology like from the movie "Brainstorm" comes around, that might muck with things a bit.
Friday, March 5, 2004 5:35 AM
ROCKETJOCK
Quote:Originally posted by Hans: Quote:Originally posted by Shiny: This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact). Hans
Quote:Originally posted by Shiny: This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact). Hans
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL