GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The science of FireFly.

POSTED BY: CITIZEN
UPDATED: Monday, January 2, 2006 07:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6215
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:47 AM

CITIZEN


This is a rehashing of Chrisisall's long lost thread, Hope you don't mind me reviving it!

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the science and tech of FireFly.

Nothin' at all.

If you think there's a Technical/Scientific inconsistency then your understanding is flawed.

So post any problems you have with FireFly tech or science here, and you will be given the scientific explanation as too why your wrong.

Please bare in mind this thread is somewhat light-hearted, so if I call you an idiot, I don't really mean it .




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.


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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:18 AM

SERYN


go on then, call me an idiot!


ok, not my problem as such, but an interesting point -projectile weapons on board space craft.

Big no no - why? because you could blow a little hole in your bulkhead and learn to explore space the mushy way.

But would not lasers and the other mentioned weapons be just as damaging?

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

seryn wrote:
Saturday, December 31, 2005 04:18
go on then, call me an idiot!


ok, not my problem as such, but an interesting point -projectile weapons on board space craft.

Big no no - why? because you could blow a little hole in your bulkhead and learn to explore space the mushy way.

But would not lasers and the other mentioned weapons be just as damaging?



Valid point, but Jayne makes mention that none of his guns would pierce the hull of Serenity, with the possible exception of Vera.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:31 AM

SERYN


Excellent point, it just made me wonder when in Heart of Gold, that laser gun rips straight through metal wood and human.

ok, so it was glorified tinfoil, but it still seems that it could do damage to whatever Serenity is made of, especially as its a continuous stream and not reliant on force or anything.

Come on Citizen, is wish to stand in awe of your obviously vast intellect



oh you know I love ya really



doesn't get you off the hook though...

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:55 AM

CITIZEN


Why a laser won't punch through the hull of Serenity:

Firstly lasers lose a lot of power when interacting with matter. Serenity's hull is thick and likely made of dense material, especially in comparison to the aforementioned wood tinfoil and human flesh.

In the specific example of a Star ships hull the continuous stream or the laser would work against it as it would vaporise the top layer of material instantly into a cloud of essentially plasma and debris. This cloud would scatter the beam, quickly reducing the effective destructive power of the beam to zero. You get a small pothole in the hull and not a lot else.

If the laser worked on a fast pulse that allowed the vaporisation to dissipate, it may punch a hole through the hull if concentrated on the same area long enough.

This quote about Laser cutting is also useful:
Quote:

Lasers work best on materials such as carbon steel or stainless steels. Metals such as aluminium and copper alloys are more difficult to cut due to their ability to reflect the light as well as absorb and conduct heat. This requires lasers that are more powerful.

If star ship hulls were constructed of a material that is good at dissipating heat and reflecting light (which due to the specific concerns of space travel is not unreasonable) that would further reduce the effectiveness of the beam.

As a side note Mal is being pretty stupid mentioning a bullet penetrating the hull. A vessels hull would be required to hold up against collisions far greater than that of a bullet, and still maintain structural integrity. For instance:

Select to view spoiler:


Serenity collides with debris during the space battle in the film.



Quite simple really, Dumbass



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:25 AM

SERYN


*awe*

come on everyone, join in...

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:30 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


First of all, what does Jayne know about the science of structural materials? Jayne seems like the kind of guy who would believe that shooting a hole in a jet airliner’s porthole window would cause the bulkhead to blow out and everyone to be sucked through it. So I don’t know that we can really take Jayne seriously when he says that Vera could break the haul.

Why?

If a Firefly class spaceship is to be space worthy it must be able to withstand small meteors with relatively high velocities, since space is riddled with tinny pieced of ice, iron and rock that can travel at velocities well above those imparted by small arms. This goes for the glass as well. Furthermore, there is the pressure of reentry which is considerable. (Also I think Firefly maybe the first space opera type science fiction to ever attempt to accurately deal with the violent pressures of reentry.)

So, can Vera really breach the haul? We saw Vera do that in which Jayne shot out the windows of a space station. Maybe Vera just cracked the windows. That’s what it looked like. Is this a typical space station or just a Wal-Mart space station bad guys use to capture Fireflies? This is a fair indication that someone thought about this, because high tensile bullet proof glass cannot stop a high velocity bullet. Something like a 7.62 fired from Remington .308 rifle will go right through even very thick and dense bullet proof glass like it was butter.

Now AFRL may be designing transparent composite called ALON (Aluminum oxynitride, read: “transparent aluminum” for star trek fans) that can be resistant up to .50 caliber high velocity rounds, which is considerably larger then Vera’s caliber. That’s the kind gun that can turn an engine block into scrap mettle. So I’m inclined to believe that the issue is a little more complicated the Jayne makes it sound.

As for lasers?

I’m a ballistics guy, and lasers and particle beams are huge lumbering things that require unfathomable amounts of energy to be useful for military purposes and their use is much more limited then science fiction generally makes them appear. Everyone who has read a science fiction forum knows about the guy who asks about using a mirror to block lasers? Well, that would only work if the lasers light was such that it reflected off the mirror, which may or may not be case, but it illustrates the complexity of lasers and how little of that science is actually address in science fiction movies/tv. Particle beams, not lasers, would be a more dependent general use weapon, but they suffer from many limitations as well. My point is that, in many cases, it works much better to treat a "laser" as if it were a magical weapon.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:31 AM

SCORPIONREGENT


I often wonder about the gravity issue. I imagine Inara could put freefall to use quite artistically.

Scorpion Regent

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:36 AM

SCORPIONREGENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First of all, what does Jayne know about the science of structural materials? Jayne seems like the kind of guy who would believe that shooting a hole in a jet airliner’s porthole window would cause the bulkhead to blow out and everyone to be sucked through it. So I don’t know that we can really take Jayne seriously when he says that Vera could break the haul.

Why?

If a Firefly class spaceship is to be space worthy it must be able to withstand small meteors with relatively high velocities, since space is riddled with tinny pieced of ice, iron and rock that can travel at velocities well above those imparted by small arms. This goes for the glass as well. Furthermore, there is the pressure of reentry which is considerable. (Also I think Firefly maybe the first space opera type science fiction to ever attempt to accurately deal with the violent pressures of reentry.)

So, can Vera really breach the haul? We saw Vera do that in which Jayne shot out the windows of a space station. Maybe Vera just cracked the windows. That’s what it looked like. Is this a typical space station or just a Wal-Mart space station bad guys use to capture Fireflies? This is a fair indication that someone thought about this, because high tensile bullet proof glass cannot stop a high velocity bullet. Something like a 7.62 fired from Remington .308 rifle will go right through even very thick and dense bullet proof glass like it was butter.

Now AFRL may be designing transparent composite called ALON (Aluminum oxynitride, read: “transparent aluminum” for star trek fans) that can be resistant up to .50 caliber high velocity rounds, which is considerably larger then Vera’s caliber. That’s the kind gun that can turn an engine block into scrap mettle. So I’m inclined to believe that the issue is a little more complicated the Jayne makes it sound.




-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.




Don't forget to take into account that the bullet fired from Vera is also accelerated by the velocity of the moving ship it is fired from.

Scorpion Regent

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:47 AM

CITIZEN


Finn, Largely what I was getting at, but explained better.

One of the issues with Particle beams would be accelerating the particles. CERN requires an accellerator the size of a city to accellerate the particle stream. It's very possible that a Particle beam weapon would be a ship mounted thing.

ScorpionRegent:
What is you specifc problem with Gravity?

{EDIT} Learns to read things before posting.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:56 AM

SERYN


as I have nothing useful whatsover to add to this, i'm just going to continue pretty much as I was.

*awe*

And I think SR was being an itty bit naughty -you guys often are when you mention Inara.

-------------------------------------------
"She's a mite whimsical in the brainpan."

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:05 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cuhmal:
So, can Vera really breach the haul? We saw Vera do that in which Jayne shot out the windows of a space station. Maybe Vera just cracked the windows. That’s what it looked like. Is this a typical space station or just a Wal-Mart space station bad guys use to capture Fireflies? This is a fair indication that someone thought about this, because high tensile bullet proof glass cannot stop a high velocity bullet. Something like a 7.62 fired from Remington .308 rifle will go right through even very thick and dense bullet proof glass like it was butter.

Now AFRL may be designing transparent composite called ALON (Aluminum oxynitride, read: “transparent aluminum” for star trek fans) that can be resistant up to .50 caliber high velocity rounds, which is considerably larger then Vera’s caliber. That’s the kind gun that can turn an engine block into scrap mettle. So I’m inclined to believe that the issue is a little more complicated the Jayne makes it sound.


As ScorpionRegent said, the bullet is travelling at a much greater velocity due to the speed of the platform it was fired from.

This site has information on the effects of very high velocity impacts, including an image of a crater in the Space shuttles front window caused by a flake of paint:
Quote:

Running into large objects is bad at any speed, but running into something as small as a grain of sand can be destructive for high-speed travelers. In 1983, a small paint flake struck the space shuttle Challenger with such force that it gouged a small crater in the front window4.1 (see the picture above). The damage was so great the window had to be replaced after the flight (costing $50,000). Many windows, in fact, have been replaced over the years because of this problem. It is the speed of the impact that makes these small objects so destructive. If the shuttle had been hit by an object 1/35th the weight (mass) of an aspirin, it would have struck with the impact of a .30 caliber bullet.

http://www.biblehelp.org/ufo4.htm



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:07 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


I see by your signature that you like to lampoon President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, but you are the one with a poor grasp of diction and grammar.
Your use of the word 'too' is incorrect as well as your use of 'bare'. You should have used 'to' and 'bear'.
But oh well, those errors are popping up more and more as products of publick educashun emerge. (misspellings intended)

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:09 AM

CITIZEN


Yes I'm dyslexic, well done your an idiot, Troll.
*Wonders who it is who is responcible for the failiures of public education*
You really didn't think this through did you?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:12 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


how can a 7.62 be fired from a Remington .308?
Aren't they different calibers?
Just thinking.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:14 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


Don't you mean, "you're" an idiot? Once again, watch that diction.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:18 AM

CITIZEN


Obviously you need me to explain what dyslexia is.

I won't because your mind is by no means capable of understanding the meaning of my words beyond simple spelling or grammar mistakes that your copy of MS Word picked up. Don't think you've fooled me into thinking your intelligent enough to pick up on them yourself, honey.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:19 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


Well, let's go ahead and 'think this thing through'. Who is 'basically in charge' of public education? It is the Liberals. They have become entrenched in the education system. They are the ones who brought us 'outcome based' education where 2 + 2 can equal five, if you really felt like it, so yes, that is why we get so many people who confuse to, two and too, along with a handful of other contradictions, errors and miscalculations. But, it's okay, as long as you feel good about yourself. The Liberal mantra, "Whatever is good for you" apparently applies to writing errors.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:29 AM

GEEKMAFIA


You know, if the internet has taught me anything it's that violence is not the lowest form of argument... Correcting a persons grammar is.



011101000110100001100101001000000111001101101001
011001110110111001100001011011000000110100001010

Liu koushui de biaozi he houzi de ben erzi.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:32 AM

CITIZEN


SpaceShipLover(I assume you mean that litterally):
There are two places for you. The RWED, which I assume you steer clear of because intelligent people post there, and Troll Country, which is where your type usually ends up. Kindly choose one.

Oh and since you want me to stop Lampooning Tony Blair and George Bush, partly by talking about my lack of education, you may want to get your facts straight. Tony Blair IS a Liberal. He’s the leader of the LEFT WING LABOUR party, a fact that appears to have passed you by. George Bush or at least his government, not some evil shadowy leftist conspiratorial group, is responsible for the budgets and priorities of the educational system in America. They ARE responsible.

If you want to discuss such things go to the RWED, that's what it's there for. The hints in the title, you know Real World Event Discussion, felt I had to spell it out to you.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:37 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by spaceshiplover:
how can a 7.62 be fired from a Remington .308?
Aren't they different calibers?
Just thinking.

Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on what you mean by caliber. There is very little difference between a 7.62x51 NATO round and common .308 commercial round such as a Winchester. Dimensionally, the NATO is only 0.005” wider, but this is often within production spec variation, and in fact, the rounds will interchange within the manufacturing tolerances of most rifles. So whether they are different calibers or not, a 7.62 will fire from most Remington .308 rifles. However, as a precaution, it is always better to use the manufacture’s suggested ammunition.

Instead of pointing out stupid shit, like misspellings and such, try keeping on topic. Do you have something about the science of Firefly you would like to discuss?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:39 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


Oh, I know what dyslexia is. However, using 'too' for 'to' is not dyslexia. It is ignorance. You would have used ot instead of to if it were to be chalked up to dyslexia.
Hmm. Maybe I hit a little too close to home. (note the use of 'too', here. That is the proper usage)

I started this as a friendly reminder that your diction needed improvement. It is you who turned it into a rampage. But I have also found that the most 'intolorant' of all people are the 'tolorant' Liberals. As is evidenced in this exchange. :)

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:43 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


I am sorry I have offended you. I just wanted clarification of what you had said. I know that the 'NATO' round of 7.62 can be used for the .308, but the most common reference to 7.62 is usually to the 7.62x.39 which is not interchangeable.
Can you see what I was referring to? I apologize once again, just seeking clarification for my own edification.

As to the science of firefly, I would like to ask about how they generate gravity. That is something which is often never discussed in science fiction. I notice there is a spinning ring on the ship. Is this the thing which produces gravity? If so, how does it do it when it is obvious that the living areas are not spinning.
Is this a good question?
Thanks

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:47 AM

CITIZEN


Firstly, you don't know what Dyslexia is; you proved that just now, it affects different people differently. It can manifest as grammatical faults, I don't mix letters but I sometimes do it with numbers. Thanks for eloquently proving my point.

Oh and so that you know, I'm not a Liberal, I'm much closer to a Libertarian in my beliefs, not that you'd know the difference.

There was nothing friendly about your 'reminder'. If you really think that there was you're obviously someone with very few (if any) friends.

Lastly, post what you like, you're a Troll and you've decided to destroy this thread, I won't reply to you again.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:56 AM

SPACEHOPPER


Quote:

Originally posted by spaceshiplover:
Well, let's go ahead and 'think this thing through'. Who is 'basically in charge' of public education? It is the Liberals. They have become entrenched in the education system. They are the ones who brought us 'outcome based' education where 2 + 2 can equal five, if you really felt like it, so yes, that is why we get so many people who confuse to, two and too, along with a handful of other contradictions, errors and miscalculations. But, it's okay, as long as you feel good about yourself. The Liberal mantra, "Whatever is good for you" apparently applies to writing errors.



Just because you wasted three years at University getting a low grade in a useless degree, doesn't give you the right to try to belittle someone else to make youself feel better. You should be focussing your energies on getting that all-important minimum wage temp job, you go girl!

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:03 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


My, my, my. How touchy. Once again the liberal mindset is exposed to how fiercely they oppose any philosophy which is not aligned with them. I have had many dealings with liberals who wish to silence me because I disagree with them. I know Tony Blair is a liberal. The assumptions you are making are groundless and indicitive of a spiteful mind. Your intolorance of a viewpoint different from your own is on parade here. You wish me to go somewhere else. Very much like a liberal. However, my assertion of the fact that it is the Liberal mindset which is entrenched in the American educational system is valid. I don't know if you are in America or not, but I have spent many years in the American educational systems, and have fought many a liberal there. I know what I am talking about. I have raised five children by homeschooling them and every one of them are at least two grades ahead of their 'public educated' counterparts. They all can think circles around the typical student.
But I can surely feel the vitriolic hatred emanating from you. Wow.
I don't hate you. I just enjoy sparring with the left. But they sure do take it personal. Why don't you take a deep breath, and stop being so touchy. If you encounter someone with an opposing viewpoint, don't do the liberal knee-jerk reaction of trying to shut them up or send them away, and actually listen to thier arguments and try to counter them without the ad hominim attacks.
Now, do YOU want me to define ad hominim????
:)

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:14 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by spaceshiplover:
I am sorry I have offended you. I just wanted clarification of what you had said. I know that the 'NATO' round of 7.62 can be used for the .308, but the most common reference to 7.62 is usually to the 7.62x.39 which is not interchangeable.
Can you see what I was referring to? I apologize once again, just seeking clarification for my own edification.

It wasn’t your question that offended me. Citizen is a smart guy and a long time member of the board and he does deserve more respect. Criticizing him, or anyone else, out of the blue for things that have no particular weight or relevance to the topic is not considered appropriate. As a general rule, you should stick to the topic, whether you agree with someone’s politics or not. Therefore, if it is politics you want to discuss then please go down to the RWED.
Quote:

Originally posted by spaceshiplover:
As to the science of firefly, I would like to ask about how they generate gravity. That is something which is often never discussed in science fiction. I notice there is a spinning ring on the ship. Is this the thing which produces gravity? If so, how does it do it when it is obvious that the living areas are not spinning.
Is this a good question?

It’s better then some of your others. There isn’t really an answer to it, though. It is never clarified in the show and there is little pertinent science to address it. It is, in general, fantasy.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:31 AM

PSYCHICRIVER


Well, Mr Smarty Pants, if you're sooo smart, then explain to me, how River turned that stick into a gun in Objects in Space?!

PsychicRiver

"Two by two, hands of blue."
"We'll take care of each other. I'll knit!"
"I swallowed a bug."

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:32 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


I understand that there is little science in the area of gravity generation. So, do you think that the spinning portion of the ship is for gravity generation?

How much of the science of the mechanics of the ship is in the show? Do they ever speak to how they travel faster than light? How gravity is generated? What about water and food storage. That is another issue which is never mentioned in science fiction. Water storage. Most ships would need a significant portion dedicated to water storage. I did happen to see a mention of that in one website which was dealing with possible blueprints to a Star Wars Emperial Destroyer. Most of the front section of the ship was dedicated to water storage.

What about Firefly? Do they ever show much of the ship's storage? Is there a blueprint available for the ship anywhere?

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:38 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


First of all, you are making another wrong assumption that I spent three years at a university and got a bad grade. Also that I am making minimum wage. Wrong on all counts.
However, I will apologize for any bad feelings. My intention was not to belittle someone, (as I am sure yours was), I just wanted to correct a very common mistake in grammar and diction. Most educated people would not have made that mistake. (so if YOU got a degree and still couldn't figure out what the difference is between 'to', 'too' and 'two', who wasted thier time at university?)
But I apologize for creating such a hornet's nest of bad feelings. Didn't realize people were that touchy.
Sorry.
I will bear no malice, if you will.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:59 AM

CITIZEN


Look, my problem wasn't with your political opinion. For a start you made political statements from the outset here, and we have a place for that, the RWED.

Also if you look at the last statement of my first post you'll understand, largely, why my first response was the way it was. I have no problem with you remaining here IF you stick to the topic, and refrain from attacking me or anyone else.

Your initial post was an attack, if you merely wanted to point out a grammar mistake then fine, I'd of thanked you. But you didn’t do that. You said, in other words, you want to Lampoon Blair and Bush when you're the idiot. Not a good way to start, especially when you've only joined today and this is the only thread you've posted on. It screams of Troll.

If you want to discuss the original topic, fine, stay and your posing of a question (which I'll get to in a subsequent post) is the only reason I've now responded. If you want to continue with politics I'll tell you again, that's what the RWED is for.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 8:20 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by PsychicRiver:
Well, Mr Smarty Pants, if you're sooo smart, then explain to me, how River turned that stick into a gun in Objects in Space?!


It was always a gun, River was hallucinating, and saw the gun as a stick. Deep down she knew it was a gun, hence the line:
"It's only an object; it's not what you think."

Simple, really, you clod




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 8:23 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by PsychicRiver:
Well, Mr Smarty Pants, if you're sooo smart, then explain to me, how River turned that stick into a gun in Objects in Space?!

Clearly, if follows directly that River had in her possession a Siemens stick-to-gun re-atomization replicator with Bausch&Lomb infrared bifurcation lens for accurate stick discrimination. Duh.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:07 AM

CITIZEN


spaceshiplover, to answer your question.
Quote:

Originally posted by spaceshiplover:
I would like to ask about how they generate gravity. That is something which is often never discussed in science fiction. I notice there is a spinning ring on the ship. Is this the thing which produces gravity? If so, how does it do it when it is obvious that the living areas are not spinning.


Gravity is not generated by centrifugal force in the FireFly 'verse. A point proven if by no other instance, the pilot episode when gravity is turned on in the airlock during the salvage mission. The spinning section is to do with the main 'FireFly' drive. The section responsible for generating Gravity is a ring just behind the drive unit but in front of the spinning section you mentioned.
The Gravity generator is ringed in red here:


Obviously given an Einsteinian universe gravity is the effect of warped space-time on matter. But what causes this space-time warping?

Theoretical:
By the 26th century the Graviton had been discovered. The graviton is a particle of Zero rest mass, and as such has wave like properties due too Wave-Particle Duality. The Graviton is not a particle in the normal sense, in other words the sense that a Positron Neutron or Electron is a particle. In fact the Graviton is an absence of space-time within our space-time frame, much like a Bubble of CO² in a fizzy drink is an absence of that liquid. Unlike the bubble, however, the Graviton has no contents and as nature abhors a vacuum space-time ‘rushes in’ to fill this void.

This causes a pinching of local space-time as the Graviton passes through. A concentration of Gravitons causes increasing gravity effects due to the increased pinching of space-time. Gravitons are created by Matter of finite mass as a side-effect of interactions with space-time and the Zero-point energy field.

As the Gravitons from a body will spread out in all directions the warping of space time, and thus the force of their attraction, reduces by the inverse square of the distance from the body. This is backed up by the following equation:
g = G M / r²
Where g is the gravitational acceleration
G is the gravitational constant
M is the mass of the body
r is the distance from the body

Thus in order to generate artificial gravity (or for that matter anti-gravity) you need to generate and direct gravitons in a controllable fashion.

Serenity’s Gravity Generator
The gravity generator on the engineering section of Serenity generates gravity through induced interactions with the Zero-point energy field. That is it interacts with the ZPF in away that is consistent with an object of much greater mass, without the increased mass.

This is achieved by ceramic super-conducting rings spinning within an electro-magnetic field, which induces the creation of Gravitons between the spinning rings. The Gravitons are then directed and propagated throughout the ship, much like electrons through copper wire, via the gravity and inertial dampening grids. These can be turned on and off, in whole or in part as desired.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:17 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Orignally posted by Spaceshiplover:
Do they ever speak to how they travel faster than light?


Serenity does not and can not travel faster than light.

In fact the Firefly 'verse has no FTL drives.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:37 AM

KARNEJJ


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
As ScorpionRegent said, the bullet is travelling at a much greater velocity due to the speed of the platform it was fired from.

This site has information on the effects of very high velocity impacts, including an image of a crater in the Space shuttles front window caused by a flake of paint:
Quote:

Running into large objects is bad at any speed, but running into something as small as a grain of sand can be destructive for high-speed travelers. In 1983, a small paint flake struck the space shuttle Challenger with such force that it gouged a small crater in the front window4.1 (see the picture above). The damage was so great the window had to be replaced after the flight (costing $50,000). Many windows, in fact, have been replaced over the years because of this problem. It is the speed of the impact that makes these small objects so destructive. If the shuttle had been hit by an object 1/35th the weight (mass) of an aspirin, it would have struck with the impact of a .30 caliber bullet.

http://www.biblehelp.org/ufo4.htm






Hmm ... so you have to apply relativistic physics .. let's see .. assuming a speed of say ... half of the speed of light?? Sure .. why not.

Oh, just for the hell of it, let's assume Vera is a high-quality miniature Rail Gun too, capable of accelerating .50 caliber sized rounds up to 1/10th of the speed of light.

Let's see .. combining those gets 59.5% of the speed of light (relative to any objects outside of the ship that would measure the ship's speed at 50%*c). At 0.045 kg at rest, the .50 cal round would gain approx 80% more mass relativistically, becoming 0.081 kg. That's a whopping kinetic energy of 230 trillion Gigajoules.

Been a long time since I've applied any physics equations, but that seems like enough to blow through a bitty window. Would've been ok to see one shot slag a 1 foot hole through the whole place ... BOO for missed special f/x opportunities!

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:58 AM

KARNEJJ


My question is ... why are people still able to die??

We should have a fairly decent grasp of nanotechnology by the end of this century alone. That should mean nearly instantaneous healing. On top of that, eventually, we should have man-made computing speeds and sizes comparable to human brains (predicted by Moore's 'law' to happen within 30-40 years).

This should mean that even if someone *were* to actually be killed, they might have had a copy of their brain downloaded into a safe place at some time before and could, therefore, be replaced by an exact clone. That clone could even be completely synthetic (ie. no organs). Robo-Jayne would kick some serious a-s.

One could even contemplate having multiple clones of one person working together. Hmm ... it might work in a limited case of personalities, but most people have even a small amount of vanity that would abhor having such an exact clone. Game Theory would predict that even a small amount of vanity would eventually have to escalate into the copies trying to eliminate each other before the other ones tried to eliminate them.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 11:35 AM

PSYCHICRIVER


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

It was always a gun, River was hallucinating, and saw the gun as a stick. Deep down she knew it was a gun, hence the line:
"It's only an object; it's not what you think."

Simple, really, you clod

Oh sure! Take the easy way out...

PsychicRiver

"Two by two, hands of blue."
"We'll take care of each other. I'll knit!"
"I swallowed a bug."

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 11:40 AM

SPACESHIPLOVER


Thank you very much for all of this information. I appreciate it. I am a great lover of Science Fiction and spaceships in particlular. The science of many spaceships are woefully lacking in many of the shows. I say this with some sort of 'authority' as I have spent four years in what can pass as our 'society's' closest thing to a spaceship, a nuclear submarine. I was on the U.S.S. John Adams, SSBN 620(B) for four years and I know the type of machinery it takes to support 'life' at least at our technilogical levels. I realize, of course, that the ship in Firefly is at levels of technology way ahead of ours, but physics is physics and it takes some sort of equipment to support life no matter what the level of technology.

So, to answer another post, there is no FTL travel in the Firefly universe, how then did they get to another solar system? Are all the planets in the shows in the same solar system? Are they in different solar systems?

It is these things that interest me.

BTW, does anybody know of any plastic model kits for the ship existing? Does a kit exist of the Serenity and if so, how can one get one?


Thanks so much.


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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:25 PM

MIDRI


On the subject of why peopel do not die, I think it probably has a lot to do with the power struggle that erupted on earth before the colonization (when the US and China were left as the only super powers.) They deverted their atention to space travel and space exploration (much like the US had aginst the USSR)

On the subject of water, dehyrdated water du! ;)

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:33 PM

KARNEJJ


Quote:

Originally posted by spaceshiplover:
So, to answer another post, there is no FTL travel in the Firefly universe, how then did they get to another solar system? Are all the planets in the shows in the same solar system? Are they in different solar systems?

It is these things that interest me.




Well, assuming that they are indeed travelling to different solar systems, they do seem to be in unusually densely populated area of the galaxy. However, you can easily assume that most of their monotonous flight time is just simply cut-out of the shows without so much as a mention. Due to their age continuity, we can assume they're not cutting out years, but rather, at best, months. To be able to reach various different solar systems in only months of time would indicate a densely populated region.

However, we could alternately assume that they are just travelling within the confines of a particularly large single solar system. Even assume that an unusual number of planets lie similar distances from the sun(s), so that they all receive habitable amounts of solar energy. Of course, terraforming is a large topic in the show, so it is conceivable that the planets that appear sunny are just tricks of some highly-advanced terraforming technology. The Serentity movie almost seems to bolster this theory as there did not seem to be an abundance of solar energy in the Reaver space they passed through, but that the secret planet had to be like the most well-lit world in the 'verse - after watching the movie a couple of times, I started calling it Brightworld, actually.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:56 PM

CITIZEN


Why do people still die?

Nanotechnology. The great fix all answer.

Or not. We can't build cogs that don't wear out in less than a second on the nano scale at the moment. Also we can't build particularly intelligent macro robots, so nano-tech robots seem pretty far off.

Most current nanotech has nothing to do with miniature robots; it's to do with advanced engineering of materials, for instance. Robots are a very small part of it.

On top of that even if they do have tiny super robots, how are they to prevent people dying? Where do the resources come from to repair the damage to the body?

Even given that there's many instances where Nanobots would be unable to help. If you're kicked out an airlock even a nanobot can do nothing.

On the subject of brain computers. Moore's law also predicts that one day computers will not be enhanced any further. We are actually reaching that postulate now with conventional electronic computers.

Further how does one download their brain? We have very little knowledge of how the brain works, and that doesn't seem to have advanced greatly by the era of Firefly. How would these computer brains simulate the Quantum interactions that also work with in the Human brain to generate consciousness?

This immortal human tech is far further off than the 26th century.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:04 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by spaceshiplover:
So, to answer another post, there is no FTL travel in the Firefly universe, how then did they get to another solar system? Are all the planets in the shows in the same solar system? Are they in different solar systems?


Firefly takes place in a single system consisting of 21 habitable planets and roughly 50 habitable moons. Humans came to the system through STL generational ships after the collapse of Earth. These ships travelled at relativistic speeds, so they were able to travel huge distances in a short subjective time frame.

There's an equation that can help to tell us how far a ship will travel at high relativistic speeds:
t = t0/(1-v²/c²)½

Where: t = time of external observer
t0 = time on board ship
v = the speed of the moving object
c = the speed of light in a vacuum

Let’s assume they travelled 200ly at 0.8c. This journey would take 250yrs.
Rearranging the equation to give t0 and simplifying for c:
t0 = t * (1 - V²)½
Where V is the speed of the craft as a fraction of c.
t0 = 250 * (1 - 0.8²)½
t0 = 250 * 0.36½
t0 = 250 * 0.6
t0 = 150

So a journey of 200ly would take 150yrs for those on board ship at 0.8c given relativistic time dilation effects.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:52 PM

KARNEJJ


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Why do people still die?

Nanotechnology. The great fix all answer.

Or not. We can't build cogs that don't wear out in less than a second on the nano scale at the moment. Also we can't build particularly intelligent macro robots, so nano-tech robots seem pretty far off.

Most current nanotech has nothing to do with miniature robots; it's to do with advanced engineering of materials, for instance. Robots are a very small part of it.

On top of that even if they do have tiny super robots, how are they to prevent people dying? Where do the resources come from to repair the damage to the body?

Even given that there's many instances where Nanobots would be unable to help. If you're kicked out an airlock even a nanobot can do nothing.

On the subject of brain computers. Moore's law also predicts that one day computers will not be enhanced any further. We are actually reaching that postulate now with conventional electronic computers.

Further how does one download their brain? We have very little knowledge of how the brain works, and that doesn't seem to have advanced greatly by the era of Firefly. How would these computer brains simulate the Quantum interactions that also work with in the Human brain to generate consciousness?

This immortal human tech is far further off than the 26th century.






--------------

No way any sane galactic civilization would be able to "direct gravitons" and not prioritize nanotech research higher than the theoretical physics behind gravitational manipulation. Nanotech holds way too much potential to be neglected in any far-future society, so I would expect bullet wounds to not be as lethal as they are in the Firefly 'verse. Nanobots would be able to heal us just like our normal cells do - just a lot faster. I'm sure sources of repair materials could easily be drawn from clothing and/or the ground+air. They wouldn't be able to save a person from every situation ... but localized wounds should be a long-gone problem. I'm talking about technology that should eventually approach a Terminator-2 level of resiliency.

As for "downloading brains," you do seem to be right about the state of the Neurological science in the Firefly 'verse. They are still conducting rudimentary experiments into ESP and human programming. However, I'm sure any electronic sensory system system capable of terraforming entire moons and guiding city-sized spaceships would be capable of mapping a human brain pretty exactly. I believe I've seen estimates that it would only take 32 gigabytes of data to store a map of the human brain down to quantum states. Even with present-day technology, if given enough money, a lab could slice down a dead brain into thinner-than-paper slices and scan them to recreate the structure. MRI and similar techniques are increasing our resolution on living brains more and more each year.

As for human consciousness and the paradox of "Why we are aware enough to question our own existence," well ... quantum interactions are the last hiding place that we can shroud them in mystery, but I think eventually, we'll all have to face the fact that our personalities/decisions/actions are pretty predictably programmed into our macroscopic neural structure and we will have to accept that we are just meat computers whose outputs could be predicted with extreme accuracy when we decipher the programming language called our "nervous system" - if we know all of the inputs.

We'd like to think that the inherent randomness of quantum effects allow us to avoid having our actions predetermined or "fated," but alas, I think we're no less predictable than any computer program that we can create. All the new talk of quantum-effects and consciousness just smacks of "Earth is the center of the Universe"-type vanity. We'll find out our consciousness isn't very special at all ... just like our place (physical location) in the Universe.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:56 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Karnejj:
No way any sane galactic civilization would be able to "direct gravitons" and not prioritize nanotech research higher than the theoretical physics behind gravitational manipulation.


We can direct electricity yet we cannot stop lightning. You're assuming it's harder to direct Graviton's than it is to create Nanobots. Nanobots are incredibly sophisticated machinery, more sophisticated than anything we can make now, on a scale far far far smaller than even the simplest nano tech we can make now. Nanobots of the type you speak of are incredibly advanced tech, so advanced that they would appear to be like magic too us now.

Much of what I spoke of for Gravity is being theorised NOW and even being developed by companies such as BAE and Boeing and looked at by organisations such as NASA.

Look at Star Trek. They have warp drive but the Federation can't build Nanobots...

As for brains:
Beyond the fact that it is possible to predict people's reactions to a degree, with increasing divergence with time, if quantum interactions are involved then there is a certain level of uncertainty that may give rise to our consciousness. The human brain is not just a meat computer, there's far more too it, the computing aspect is minor. I'm saying that computers won't be capable of consciousness until we have biological computers, in other words you can’t fake consciousness. Once we have biological computers it would be easier to hook up the brain directly, as a module of the main computing unit, than too download the structure.

The brain is more than just a hard drive.

Also there is demonstrable evidence that quantum interactions have an effect on the Brain .

Quote:

if we know all of the inputs.

erm, yeah, that’s the telling thing. If we knew all the inputs we’d be able to predict the weather for any amount of time in the future. The problem is, you can’t know all the variables, that’s a big part of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

When you or anyone else, has written a computer program that accurately models the reactions and interactions of any Human being under any circumstances, come back to me



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:20 PM

DONCOAT


Further research in nanotechnology was banned worldwide after the catastrophe of 2067, in which self-replicating nanobots intended for medical repair got loose in the environment and began making "adjustments" to the humans they encountered. Almost half a billion lives were lost, and over two billion suffered devastating nonlethal consequences before the outbreak was controlled.

Moron.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 5:24 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
Moron.


That's the spirit



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:42 PM

KARNEJJ


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Karnejj:
No way any sane galactic civilization would be able to "direct gravitons" and not prioritize nanotech research higher than the theoretical physics behind gravitational manipulation.


We can direct electricity yet we cannot stop lightning. You're assuming it's harder to direct Graviton's than it is to create Nanobots.
Nanobots are incredibly sophisticated machinery, more sophisticated than anything we can make now, on a scale far far far smaller than even the simplest nano tech we can make now. Nanobots of the type you speak of are incredibly advanced tech, so advanced that they would appear to be like magic too us now.

Much of what I spoke of for Gravity is being theorised NOW and even being developed by companies such as BAE and Boeing and looked at by organisations such as NASA.

Look at Star Trek. They have warp drive but the Federation can't build Nanobots...

As for brains:
Beyond the fact that it is possible to predict people's reactions to a degree, with increasing divergence with time, if quantum interactions are involved then there is a certain level of uncertainty that may give rise to our consciousness. The human brain is not just a meat computer, there's far more too it, the computing aspect is minor. I'm saying that computers won't be capable of consciousness until we have biological computers, in other words you can’t fake consciousness. Once we have biological computers it would be easier to hook up the brain directly, as a module of the main computing unit, than too download the structure.

The brain is more than just a hard drive.

Also there is demonstrable evidence that quantum interactions have an effect on the Brain .

Quote:

if we know all of the inputs.

erm, yeah, that’s the telling thing. If we knew all the inputs we’d be able to predict the weather for any amount of time in the future. The problem is, you can’t know all the variables, that’s a big part of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

When you or anyone else, has written a computer program that accurately models the reactions and interactions of any Human being under any circumstances, come back to me



I never said that directing gravitons is more difficult than nanobots (although I would conjecture that it is) ... but, I would assert that the military potential for nano tech would get it higher priority than the general theoretical research that it would take to eventually control gravity.

I'm pretty sure our experiments into gravitational manipulation aren't as far along as our current state-of-the-art in nanotech. There are currently micro-scale robots that can do simple things, such as follow a line, by walking in a bi-pedal fashion. There are also Shape-Memory metals that can be actuated by a simple current. Of course there are research into bucky-balls (folded carbon nano-tubes) as mini-computers as well.

I would even submit that the Firefly 'verse has extremely advanced nanobots already. It would be one of the few ways to do the large-scale terraforming that is hinted at. Either small, versatile machinery that can go everywhere or really big complex machinery that handle various portions of the terraforming job....

As for meat computer vs quantum brains, only time will prove who's right, but I think that there can be sentient non-biological machinery. It's nice to think that consciousness is specific to humans by virtue of our meat, but I think it's only ego and vanity. Passing the Turing test [robots that can fool you well enough to pass as humans] are within reach, I believe. If a robot "acts" like it has a soul so well that we can't be sure ... would you deny that he does have one? Possibly you would ... but not everyone would be so quick to discount it ...

Tracking inputs into a person is pretty easy, ya know ... They come through only a few well-known paths. Touch (as well as smell and taste, I think) passes through the spinal column (for the most part), visual input goes through the optic nerve, and sound through the cochlea.

One interesting argument posed in a book I read could be paraphrased as follows...

We'll assume that you either are a conscious being or not ... no such thing as half a consciousness. John Doe was born a rather sickly child to very wealthy parents. As he grows older he has to have a pacemaker installed. Later, his hearing fails, but, fortunately, he is eligible for a new operation that places a device into his ear that stimulates his hearing nerves in response to sound. Later, he notices his eyesight isn't as great as it once was. He decides to have the inside of one of his eyes augmented with a high-tech hi-res camera that triples the clarity of things he sees and allows him to see far (like a telescope) and gives him a little ability to magnify things as well. Unfortunately, trying to concentrate on those advanced functions causes him dizziness due the strain. The doctors give him a visual scene processing computer the size of a credit card that he wears in his pocket. It communicates with the camera wirelessly and automatically highlights important objects that he's looking at. It even does neat things such as give him details about people and buildings he sees. Such as their birthday, favorites, and how they met, etc. He eventually adds more abilities to the card. He has it process sounds as well. One day he loses the card and can't stand the loss of the extra processing. He tells the doctors to just replace those parts of his brain and implant the machinery in his head. He's got a lot of silicon and metal thinking for him now ... is he still the same John Doe ... just better? Of course, all of his friends say he's the same ... he just can "remember" more about the people he meets now, and can hear/see much better than he used to be able to. He's even lost some brain matter ... is he still conscious - of course ... does he still have a soul - hmmmm ... who knows.
John later suffers in a horrible accident and loses his arm. Fortunately, he's not the first one with this problem. Doctors have given one man a touch/pressure sensitive prosthetic which was in recent news (late 2005). He gets one of those arms.
Then he goes and gets into another horrible accident, being paralyzed from the neck down. By this time, he can have motorized supports attached to his body which respond to impulses at his neck. These supports allow him to move his otherwise unresponsive limbs again. After having enough people snicker and stare at the machinery attached along his body, he makes the bold decision to have head transplanted directly onto a robotic frame that is shaped just like his body before the accidents.

Not much is left of the original John Doe, but ever since the new body, his friends say he's back to old, happy-go-lucky self --- he's just got one helluva grip now. Has he lost his consciousness anywhere along the way so far? Does he still have his soul?

We can even imagine that we take small parts of his brain and copy their anatomical structure and mimic their electrical signal response - even their neurotransmitter action. Say we have the technology to create (my famed) nanobots that can change their shape to mimic various neurotransmitters on command ... is there any point at which John becomes a non-sentient being? When exactly is that? 60% of his brain ... or is there a specific area in the brain that consciousness/sentience resides?? You can see the problems here.

If we give up on this line of thinking, and just assume that if it acts like a sentient being and talks like a sentient being - that it must be a sentient being ... then we can build a robot that's just as moody as humans that could probably pass this sort of test. I plan to see such a machine in my lifetime.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:56 PM

CITIZEN


Karnejj:
You make a convincing argument but the truth is in the details. Not once has 'John Doe' had his brain removed. His essence lies within, and that is never touched. Beyond that I think is beyond the scope of this thread, which is concerned with the science of Firefly, which John Doe goes beyond.

I don’t agree. There’s more to life than a simulation. At least a simulation that we can envision. As for your questions on the Human soul…

Please start a thread here about such things.

Not only will I read it but I'll post there, but your argument, which is the nature of the human soul ergo, is beyond the scope of this discussion. I hope to see you in that thread .

EDIT:
I see Nanotechnology as somewhat less powerful as a military tech than control of gravity, I also see it closer within our grasp in conserns to advanced robotic nano tech. I have seen nothing beyond simple gears that wear out within less than a second in that field. If you have more please post links, I'd like to see.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

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

Saturday, December 31, 2005 8:05 PM

FLETCH2


On Star Trek there are areas of research that the Federation "tip toes" around including anything that can be used to allow direct genetic manipulation -- supposedly a side effect of their Eugenics Wars.

Once it became clear that the Borg use nanomachines as part of their conversion process the Federation started using it too in later episodes of DS9 and in Voyager.

I am such a geek.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL