Why is Firefly so different?

POSTED BY: Randy
UPDATED: Sunday, February 16, 2003 04:30
VIEWED: 12352
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

NOOCYTE

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:20 AM

>I lean towards a single, large solar system for the background of the 'Verse. Who's to say that whatever techniques of terraforming were used on all the worlds, moons, large asteroids, planetesimals, etc, it wouldn't have the effect of increasing the gravity to something approaching Earth normal?

Trouble with that, Jeffns, is that I don't see evidence in the rest of the 'verse of that kind of God-like tech. Try to boost the gravity of even a small planet-like body, and you'd have to stabilize megatons of rock 'n such against the immense geological (*don't* give me a hard time about that word!) forces involved in changing the grav at the surface (like, say, by burrowing a small singularity into its core...remember, it has to be zero-maintenance, so giga-machines are pretty much out). The body would have a tendency to buckle. Not to mention that without enough mass to sustain some kind of tectonic process, atmo gasses would tend toward equilibrium, and not get recycled through vulcanism and such (I think this would be so even with enough plant and animal biomes to recycle oxy and carbon diox).

And remember again that the orbital dynamics of a system with THAT many bodies (*especially* one in which their gravitational characteristics had been mucked about with willy-nilly) would be outlandishly complex and, ultimately, catastrophically chaotic.

> Also, if the number of worlds seems too large to be in orbit around just one sun, just think about how many bodies exist here in our own Solar System. There are more planets, moons, etc in our system than have ever been visited, listed or mentioned in the episodes thus shown.

Well, in our own system, 4 out of 8 planets (I'm counting Pluto/Charon as a Kuiper Belt Object...and, yes,that's a WHOLE other thread!) are gas giants, so they're right out. Yup, they've got plenty of moons...but then there's the problem of the sun being too far away. Yah, maybe you could orbit artificial suns, or implode the gas giants to make mini suns (if they're massive enough...which most ain't [not even Old Jove]). But you're still talking about a whopping load of radiation on close-orbiting "planets." Again, these measures have to be zero maintenance, or your investment's for naught. Rocky planets closer in aren't as much of a problem ('less you count such as Mercury, where you'd have to orbit huge sun shades...and keep 'em there, or your colony's like ants under a magnifying glass [actually, with Mercury, you'd also have to spin it up, since it's tidally locked; always shows the same face to the sun...killer winds, and the small problem of your atmo constantly snowing onto the dark side!]). Your best course would be to stick to the relatively habitable zone (Venus-Earth-Mars), which eliminates all but three (four, if you count Luna) of the many bodies in this particular system. Again, looks like our FF 'verse is a collection of star systems.

>And only in a small (compared to the rest of the Universe) volume like a solar system would the Alliance have a hope of exercising any kind of control over the peoples. So, I think Serenity has incredibly efficient and powerful engines, but they are sublight.

This problem all-but goes away if you posit efficient FTL travel. And, with sublight engines pushing that 1-C (lightspeed) envelope all the time, then, over time, you'd start to see those pesky time dilation FX (seems I've got too much time on my hands!).

And, remember, Mal said something like ~"No matter how long the arm of the Alliance may reach, we just push out a little further." If we were talking about one star system, such boundless optimism would hit a hard limit in a relatively short time. If, instead, we were talking about even a small galaxy (like one of the Clouds), he could realistically expect a growing frontier to exist waaaay longer than his lifetime.

Hope I've laid these arguments out well enough that it doesn't look like I'm picking nits,and I DON'T mean to belittle your views...I just don't see any way that FF's 'verse could be confined to one star system...and, m

RANDY

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 5:59 PM

All technical jargon aside (way above my head), Mal states in the intro..."Here's how it is. The Earth got used up. So we moved out and terraformed a whole new GALAXY of Earths. Some, rich and flush with the new technologies. Some, not so much."

So it is a galaxy, according to Mal. Which makes sense that there are so many planets and so many settlers flying around to settle on new planets. But it must be a somewhat crowded galaxy what with Serenity running into other ships (including the Alliance) all the time.

As for that pesky time travel paradox, well, it IS science FICTION after all, and everything is based more on imagination and conjecture than on pure science. That is the function of fiction and the beauty that lies at the core of its premise. It is based in enough reality that we can accept the situations and enough fantasy so that it we can get lost in an imaginary world . And Firefly does this beautifully. Not too much science but a whole lot of humanity.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

LOSTANGEL

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:44 PM

Well, Mal could have said Galaxy figuratively.

Noocyte, how do you know so much? Got a job we're not supposed to know about? (top secret kind) Never mind, if you did you wouldn't be able to tell us anyway.

I do like the fact that its all fiction and stuff, but I also like the fact that it's able to attract people who are able to have theoretical conversations like these.

Also, let's not discount technology here. We went from riding horses to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, so with the rate that technology is growing, 500 years from now will have things that not even Joss or Gene R. could imagine.

______________________
Lost Angel

WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.
WASH: So?

DRAKON

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:54 PM

I think you are taking it too literal. Mal says galaxy of earths, like a bunch of geese, (gaggle?) May not be the right word for a bunch of new planets, but they are talking about this here galaxy you and I are in right now. They just went out to the nearby stars, and made more earths.

As for technical stuff, time dilation only goes for slower than light travel, and becomes a problem when you are accelerating and decelerating, in this "normal space". You get into a different space, a "jump" space or "hyper" space, all bets are off.

Anti gravity is not that big a stretch. Right now there is some interesting research being done for NASA by a gal named Ning Li, on this very subject.

Like your last line. "Not too much science but a whole lot of humanity."

RANDY

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:42 PM

Quote:
I think you are taking it too literal. Mal says galaxy of earths, like a bunch of geese, (gaggle?) May not be the right word for a bunch of new planets, but they are talking about this here galaxy you and I are in right now. They just went out to the nearby stars, and made more earths.

I quess none of us knows whether Mal is being figurative or literal. What you said above jibes with what I think Mal means in his monologue.

I'm also not discounting technology at all. But the heart of my point is actually in LostAngel's response.

Quote:
We went from riding horses to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, so with the rate that technology is growing, 500 years from now will have things that not even Joss or Gene R. could imagine.

Science and technology are advancing rapidly in some areas (and painfully slow in others). Things are being done that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. For me, trying to conjecture 500 years into the future when we can't even guess where science will be in 50 years seems a Sisyphean feat. When I watch the show, I just make simple assumptions (I'm afraid my mind isn't up to the challenge) and enjoy. Like I said, I am NOT discounting technology. It provides the catalyst for many interesting discussions which I've been enjoying here on the board. And the ideas and knowledge that people on this board have are amazing to me. I really am in awe.

But for me, technology is not the focus of this show. It is incidental. In fact, the show itself almost seems anti-technology. They use guns. They open doors with their hands (and some of them seem pretty hard to open). Simon stitches wounds. Kaylee keeps the engine running with duct tape, rubber bands and wishful thinking. As is the theme of this thread, that is what makes this series so special...their version of technology even manages to make Serenity seem like a warm and fuzzy being. I hope my technological ineptness doesn't offend anyone.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:55 PM

"But for me, technology is not the focus of this show. It is incidental. In fact, the show itself almost seems anti-technology. They use guns. They open doors with their hands (and some of them seem pretty hard to open). Simon stitches wounds. Kaylee keeps the engine running with duct tape, rubber bands and wishful thinking. As is the theme of this thread, that is what makes this series so special...their version of technology even manages to make Serenity seem like a warm and fuzzy being. I hope my technological ineptness doesn't offend anyone."

What you said. I agree totally, and will add that if you don't have good characters and good plots, all the high tech special effects in the world ain't gonna save you.

But what you would call anti-technology I think makes it more realistic.

Horses? The higher the "tech level", the more advanced it is, the more infrastructure needs to create that technology and maintain it. Cars need roads, gas stations, factories which require raw materials, mines, which in turn requires mining equipment, etc. And then there is repair shops, parts supplies, diagnostic equipment. There is a large infrastructure in place just to support cars.

On the other hand, horses are self replicating, self repairing to a large extent, and fueled by the local grasses, possibly grains you have to grow anyway.

Out in the black, one has to get imaginative in repairs because its a long way between filling stations. So one may need to use duct tape and bailing wire to fix things till you get to some high tech world.

And besides there is something to the low tech side that makes it feel more comfortable to me. :)

RANDY

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:35 PM

I had never even thought about the infrastructure. You are so right. Good point.

I agree wholeheartedly that the low-tech approach of the show makes everything just feel more realistic, more touchy-feely tangible. Like eating a real apple instead of watching a Pixar rendition of one. You can almost breathe the dust and smell the engine grease. We can relate to these sights and sounds: a doctor stitching a wound...a mechanic using a wrench...horses and guns...bad food...cow pies...a captain who says "Huh!?" a lot...dangling Jayne out of the cargo bay with a rope. These things are all part of our current experience (um, well, sorta...at least the "bad food" bit). It is completely unlike other shows whose technology is so advanced, everything seems to be done by magic...deus ex machina. In those shows, their daily lives are so perfect, there is no story to tell. Hence alien meanies and the like. Not so for our beloved Firefly. The fact that their daily lives are so difficult is what helps us relate, draws us in, makes us care. Their lives, filled with conflict and self-doubt as well as happiness and caring...love, even, is no picnic, with or without fancy technology. Just like ours.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:04 PM

And no damn "Prime Directive" BS that makes the crew act like complete morons for weak plot points. Grrr... that is one thing that really gets me about Star Trek.

Again, another stellar post.

VETERAN

Thursday, February 13, 2003 3:56 AM

Woa, what a thread! I have to say Captain can certainly write.

A lot to think about here. On the technology/science side, the one error I see right off, is the comment regarding the recycling of atmospheric gases through tectonic processes. This has very little to do with vulcanism. It's handled primarily by life and the water cycle. I can't comment on FTL travel or antigravity except to say at this point in time, those things are physically impossible.

To answer the thread. For me Firefly is so different because it doesn't make the gee-whiz technology the star of the show. The crew is the star(s). It's sci-fi with less emphasis on the science part of the formula than on the character development and the story. Joss and Mear assembled a terrific cast and wrote some great stories The technology is usef as plot device not as character or entitiy of its own. Aside from red and blue shifts, there are no doppler effects in space. As to why the show is so appealing to its fans I'd have to say Jubal Early says it best,

"... Firefly is a good design."

DRAKON

Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:16 AM

It has everything to do with tectonic processes and vulcanism. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, rain, which upon impact with calicum becomes calcium carbonate or limestone. It gets removed from the cycle altogether. Until that limestone rock gets subducted under the mantle, melted, and the CO2 is released to come out as volcanic gasses.

But I think I see the confusion here in that this is more a heat regulation thing. As CO2 is a greenhouse gas. By pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, you cool the planet. Which reduces rain fall, leaving just volcanic venting. That increases CO2, raising temperature, which increases rainfall, etc. You get a dynamic equalibrium in geological time, even if over shorter periods you end up with global warming and ice ages.

Oxygen is a biological process and it appears that atmospheric oxugen cannot exist without biology. And you have the whole CO2 to O2 exchange between plants and animals to deal with and keep the air clean enough for both sides to breathe.

As for FTL and antigravity, neither are known to be physically impossible. And as a matter of fact there is tantilizing evidence that they are possible, although they are not well understood. Our present theories suggest they are impossible, well that is not even true any more.

See http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0009013 and other papers referencing this work for more information.

IN General Relativity, gravity is not a force. It is "simply" a result of an object following the straightest possible path it can in curved space time. Reverse the curvature, you move the other direction, in effect you get space time.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE