Where does Firefly take place?

POSTED BY: Hans
UPDATED: Sunday, July 2, 2006 05:23
VIEWED: 62435
PAGE 7 of 18

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

HANS

Monday, October 27, 2003 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:

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

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

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

So lets's look at the points you raised.

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEKE023

Monday, October 27, 2003 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

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

So lets's look at the points you raised.

Kick Ass!

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

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

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

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

-Z

HANS

Monday, October 27, 2003 2:11 PM

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

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

So lets's look at the points you raised.

Kick Ass!

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

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

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

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

-Z

Cool!

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

MAL
How long 'til we reach Persephone?

WASH
Three or four hours.

MAL
Can we shave that?

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

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

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

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

JK

Monday, October 27, 2003 8:44 PM

Quote:
Here's how it is.

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

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

JK

RAW53X

Monday, October 27, 2003 9:05 PM

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

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

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

RAW53X

Monday, October 27, 2003 9:05 PM

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

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

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

JK

Monday, October 27, 2003 9:38 PM

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

JK

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:56 AM

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

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

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

Jayne: "How big a room?"

DRAKON

Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:09 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

ZEKE023

Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:46 PM

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

MAL
How long 'til we reach Persephone?

WASH
Three or four hours.

MAL
Can we shave that?

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

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

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

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE