Newbie Question - Aliens?
POSTED BY: Leee
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 04:21
VIEWED: 8386
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by spqr:
there are 28 planets/moons talked about in FireFly. Half way down the page is a list of names of the FireFly moons & planets.
Yes, the key word here is moons. It IS altogether possible to have 70 "Earths" in relative close proximity when you consider teraforming moons, not just planets. The new discovery today is a mere 15 light years away. Plenty of time to get there in 500 years.
"I wanna cast...Magic Missile."
http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=220487
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
everyworldspinnin wrote:
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 14:45
The new discovery today is a mere 15 light years away. Plenty of time to get there in 500 years.
Proxima Centauri is only 4.2 light years away
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
But right after Joss said that (in the same answer) he also said sci-fi questions made him cry.
So I dont think he had to be serious so this entire thing is still open for debate.
It’s quite simple really, Joss is god.
That’s what creating a world means, it doesn’t matter if it is a TV show or a novel, the creator is god because the creator can smite anyone with the swish of a pen, undo any event with a revision, and lay entire worlds to waste with a tiny bit of exposition.
When god says the world is round the world is round, it doesn’t matter if he says that geographical questions make him cry in the next sentence.
Still the matter is always open for debate, all matters are, but is that pretty much as solid as you will ever get.
(Of course he could change his mind. In a work of fiction the history and composition of the whole universe teeters on the brink of revision)
Quote:
But still, being as isolated as they were in Out of Gas would seem pretty hard to do in a single solar system, as we can monitor plenty of stuff in our current solar system now wich cant be seen with our bare eyes.
You clearly see the world in a different way than me.
(Random Note: the word “than” is currently subject to debate, scholars disagree on whether it is a preposition or a conjunction. If you say, “than I,” you are being a bit crude because you assume that the verb is implied. To be proper you should say, “than I do.” On the other hand if you say, “than me,” you are being proper provided than, a word of relation, is a preposition.
It is all so much clearer in Latin.)
My whole point was exactly what you said. We can see a lot more in our solar system than is visible with the naked eye. The eye is a receiver of transmissions made of light, a telescope is a way to augment that receiver. But if you can see the great red spot you can’t see Mars. The better, farther, and more detail you can see in the less your field of view.
If you stand on the top of my house you can see 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically, making a hemisphere off to infinity. Because of the radius of the earth and the height of geosynchronous satellites that means that I have line of sight to 46% of the geosynchronous altitude.
Of course such satellites are not evenly spread, so it could be I have fewer (or more) satellites in my line of sight than that implies.
The point remains the same though. The dish I have set up can only receive from one of them. Out of all of the satellites I have line of sight to I only have one I can get. The reason is obvious, the dish is a parabolic collector with the receiver set up at the focus. It can only see one of the satellites because if it didn’t have that collector it wouldn’t be able to receive a signal (even though it is so close to us.)
With the collector what it has line of sight to is very limited.
-
Is it so hard to believe that in a system with that many planets there could be some places that no directional receivers are pointed at and no non-directional ones are close enough to?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
SPOILERS!!!
Someone please edit it... even though it is the beginning I DONT want to know.
There aren't any spoilers here...unless you haven't watched all of Firefly yet.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
christhecynic:
If I might pose an aviation analogy: All aircraft are equipped with ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitters). In case of a distress situation, the pilot may activate the ELT which sends out a powerful omnidirectional signal on frequencies 121.5 (VHF) and 243.0 (UHF), which are the dedicated emergency or 'guard' freqs, world-wide. In case of crash, the ELT automatically triggers.
The only limitations to receiving these radio transmissions is 'line-of-sight' -- meaning the curvature of the Earth -- the strength of the transmitter and sensitivity of the receiver, and the speed of light -- because 'radio' is just a different spectrum of electromagnetic (EM) wave -- and that 'speed' is negligible between earthly distances. When I was a boy, my father was a CB (citizens' band) radio enthusiast and had sets for the car, truck and a base station for our den. One day his car's radio was destroyed by an illegally strong radio signal, which fried his receiver and antenna. Basically, the other CB'er was right next to him, keyed up his mike and zap! In a related way, an F-15's forward radar is so powerful it can fry an enemy aircraft's electronics on a close pass. (NB: In one case I know of personally, an F-15's forward radar killed a mainainer when it was accidentally triggered while he stood in front of the plane.) Another example closer to home: Never use a microwave oven to dry off your miniature poodle; you already know why. Microwaves are another form of EM.
While that may have seemed like an unnecessary digression, my point is that Serenity's transmitter must be limited in power and/or beam focus in order to avoid frying electronics every time it comes in close proximity to other craft or makes a planetary landing. It is possible that when they were flying 'under the radar' in OoG, they were outside normal shipping lanes where tightbeam relay transceivers might be placed at regular intervals. Without these relays, a ship's regulation-strength transmitter might not be strong enough to be received beyond a certain distance by standard radio receivers. Please also note that Mal prompted Wash to divert ship power to Serenity's 'ELT', which would cause problems for any passing ship's nav and comm electronics.
As a last consideration on the topic of being outside radio reception within a single system: Light from our Sun takes 7 minutes to reach us. When our star goes nova, we will be doomed for 7 minutes before the hammer actually falls. If I remember correctly, radio transmissions from Voyager were taking over an hour to reach high-sensitivity, precisely-aimed receivers in earth orbit when it was in the vicinity of Neptune (I could look it up, but I'm lazier than you might suspect). So, 'speed of light' at interplanetary distances does play a role in Firefly's situation. If the 'outer moons' were situated in a region analogous to Sol's Kuiper Belt (or farther), it could literally take hours -- even with relay transmitter signal strengths -- to reach a Core listening post. Therefore, the crew would have perished of freezing (per River) before they could be rescued.
Radiographically,
zoid
_________________________________________________
"Sure as I know anything, I know this: I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDM'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Leee:
Why the need for aliens? Most scientific commentators conclude that we would probably have a very hard time trying to interact with an alien species, in the unlikely event we ever found one. The chances of finding a humanoid alien lifeform, similar to Klingons or Vulcans, are astronomically remote at best. (So much for having a green girl in every port, Captain Kirk.)
In any case, the sole reason for having them on Star Trek (or even in the movies "Alien", "The Thing" or "Predator" for example), is to point out a side of human nature in a 'sneaky' way. We recognize their behavior in humanity, and it helps us explore a facet of human behavior, good or ill, without feeling like the author is picking on a particular group of humans specifically. So, why even have 'em, when we could just be honest and grown-up enough to explore human behaviors within actual human characters?
That's why I deeply admire Joss Whedon and his Firefly. That's also part of the reason I'm not so keen on his Buffy and Angel (gothic creatures/villains are the literary precursor of sci-fi aliens). The beauty of Firefly is that it doesn't shroud human foibles in latex prosthetic devices...
Recognizably,
zoid
P.S.
...At least not until we get into the Reavers' story, sometime later this year. Hopefully, they'll make some kind of sense, beyond simply being a cipher for some otherwise recognizable group of humans (i.e., Amerind 'heathens', Arab 'terrorists', Midwestern 'separatists', etc.).
P.P.S.
Science fiction's greatest epic, "Dune", also had no intelligent alien life forms. No one -- including the author -- has ever attributed intelligence to Shai Hulud. All the characters are humans or mutations thereof. I'll go out on a limb and say that Dune (the book) is better realized (as a work of fiction) than Star Wars and Star Trek combined.
_________________________________________________
"Sure as I know anything, I know this: I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDM'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well as I said, I really don't miss aliens in Firefly, don't need 'em.
And you're right, I keep forgetting that all aliens don't speak english (even without a universal translator)
And how come Klingons and Romulans always have the courtesy (most of the time) to speak in english when humans are aboard their ship. You would never hear the crew of the Enterprise speaking Klingonese to make their guests feel more at home.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Leee:
Hi all,
I know there was a deliberate decision not to include aliens on the show (which is fine by me) but my question is do aliens actually exist in the story? I can't imagine travelling to all those worlds and not finding any other intelligent life.
Also, in Star Trek there is a defined amount of galaxy that has been explored, is there any mention in Firefly how far out they have gone into the galaxy (or universe)?
Thanks!
Firefly seems to only deal with the planets in the 'verse that have been Terra-formed.
The process of Terra-forming would kill any pre-existing lifeforms on a planet.
There are only "humans" (Terrans)who's origins are from Earth living on these planets.
Therefore...No. There are no actual "aliens". (Though technically the colonizers of these planets are aliens.)
And there is no Mission.
No "...seek[ing] out new worlds...boldly go[ing] where no one has gone before." (I love Star Trek, by the way.)
Just finding the next job and getting paid.
Oh, and steering clear o' Reavers.
"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What Zoid said!
It disturbs me how many times I've read those six books. I've always loved the lack of aliens. Herbert let humans be the ghastly creatures they are. Joss is now following in that tradition. As much as I adore Ferengis et al, I prefer seeing man struggle with the man inside. All in all, much more satisfying.
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
P.P.S.
Science fiction's greatest epic, "Dune", also had no intelligent alien life forms. No one -- including the author -- has ever attributed intelligence to Shai Hulud. All the characters are humans or mutations thereof. I'll go out on a limb and say that Dune (the book) is better realized (as a work of fiction) than Star Wars and Star Trek combined.
www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Res melius evinissent cum pepsimilk!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
