Solar System Vs. Galaxy

POSTED BY: MadJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 17:41
VIEWED: 40136
PAGE 4 of 14

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

LODRIL

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:42 PM

Not to keep arguing with Grounded specifically, but... :)

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
They consistently refer to the 'inner planets' in the show. Does that not sound like evidence of a single solar system? Also, if you open it up so that they're operating in a galaxy then the probabilities of encountering other ships goes way down and makes eps like Out Of Gas all the more improbable.

I've worked for several major multinational corporations... and I can tell you that when they refer to 'core brands', there's not any sort of geographic unity. Core could mean a lot of things non-geographical (non-spatial?); original Alliance members, largest worlds (and thus the economic center of the 'verse), even something else entirely, like the fact that they are terraformed a different way (liquid magma core worlds... thus more suitable for Terran geography?). Even discarding the non-geography explanations, you're still faced with the fact that even if 'Core' means spatially central to the human-inhabited regions of space, you still can't identify what size that region is. They could be the three or four closest systems, with other worlds being elsewhere in the galaxy, or, as you suggest, a single solar system with important planets nearest the star. There's no evidence supporting either point, other than the gravimetrics angle of how many planets can dance on a pinhead (as many as Joss wants).

As to the second point about running into other travellers, you're presuming that an unbounded area to travel in means undefined space routes. Unless they ignore intervening obstacles, there are still going to be points between destinations at which you need to slow down and turn to avoid collision. So you could travel a line at FTL, then stop, manuever to the next straight-line shot and go again. If the routes are optimized to conserve time and fuel, it makes sense that they would often end up being in the same place. When I was in school, there were many ways to get across campus, but one was generally easiest... so if you were looking for someone, you could wait there and chances were they'd come right by.

In point of fact, within a single crowded solar system with no defined travel routes, you'd less likely to encounter other ships. There would be fewer obstacles to straight line travel, so they'd be farther off your course unless they left the same place at around the same time heading to the same destination. Even a solar system is a huge area to find a small object like a Firefly without predefined travelways.

And if there are pre-defined travelways, then that doesn't argue in favor of either a single solar system or a wider area.

I'm not saying it couldn't be a single system, but there's certainly not any strong evidence pointing at that or the other way.

DRE

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:42 PM

I would assume they have a form of FTL travel based on the comments of their 'Burner' drive (where Serenity's engines glow and the ship vroooooms off). It's definately not warp/superlight speed, but it moves em faster and easier (a couple references are made between Mal and Wash about 'burning' the drives and the use of fuel, etc. My two cents there.

As to the nature of the 'Verse, I opt for the multiple systems, but they gotta be pretty close knit. It isn't completely infeasible, but I'd put my money on Alliance Core bein by a blue star. . . .

IKIYO.
DRE

FOURSKYS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:51 AM

A couple more thougts...

If you look at the background in "The Train Job" after the bar fight, you can cleary see (if memory serves me) 3 other solid bodies, most likely planets and moons. One takes up just about the whole sky. This definitely sets up the idea that the solar system(s) is(are) quite densly packed. This definitely lends support to the idea of a single solar system. But the big problem that we have is that we've only seen a small number of planets/moons. Whitefall, persephone, Ariel, and only one or two more. We know that the travel time can range near a month between some destination(especially if it's across the solar system, and you don't fly through the center), but we don't have a feel for the whole system. It could be that they're just sitting in a sinlge solar system for a while, or maybe just in a small region of one. But there is an underlying theme to all of the travels, which is really accentuated by the theme of the show: Slow. It's kinda lazy to go anywhere. Like the idea of Joss sitting on his back porch plucking some strings during the opening sequence. They don't show ships zooming by each other at high speeds, because it's not thematic to the show. If I were to pick the best idea which fits the concepts of the show, I would have to say they live in a single solar system, with a very bright sun, and some habitable planets really far out (The Outer Rim).

While I'm not necessarily comfortable with the mechanics of a system with that many bodies, I do think that traveling at light speeds breaks the theme of the show. I just picture them traveling through space like the settlers in the Old West, pulled by oxen, sitting on covered wagons. to me, it seems like that how things should feel, even in Space.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:32 AM

Check out Kemplerer Rosettes, you can have an entire crapload of planets in the same stable orbital path.

http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/kempler.html

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

GROUNDED

Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lodril:

I've worked for several major multinational corporations... and I can tell you that when they refer to 'core brands', there's not any sort of geographic unity. Core could mean a lot of things non-geographical (non-spatial?); original Alliance members, largest worlds (and thus the economic center of the 'verse), even something else entirely, like the fact that they are terraformed a different way (liquid magma core worlds... thus more suitable for Terran geography?). Even discarding the non-geography explanations, you're still faced with the fact that even if 'Core' means spatially central to the human-inhabited regions of space, you still can't identify what size that region is.

I don't think I used the word 'core' anywhere in my post! I said 'inner planets' (which, as far our solar system is concerned, refers to Mars through Mercury). Of course I may have misquoted and in fact they don't ever say 'inner planets' specifically, I just seem to remember it from somewhere.

Quote:
Originally posted by DRE:
I would assume they have a form of FTL travel based on the comments of their 'Burner' drive (where Serenity's engines glow and the ship vroooooms off). It's definately not warp/superlight speed

FTL stands for 'faster than light' - maybe you knew that but the wording of your post seems contradictory

HORRID

Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:20 AM

I would say they have FTL tech just based the show being intended to run for 5 to 7 years, which is a long time to hang around the same 10 or so planets, that said plenty of shows last that long only being in one apartment building on one planet and I'm sure every planet in firefly has multiple towns on it, so maybe they don't

LODRIL

Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
I don't think I used the word 'core' anywhere in my post! I said 'inner planets'

I stand corrected. :)

Much of the same logic applies though. "Inner", and I think they also used "central", could have non-spatial meaning (less likely than Core, I suppose), but also don't imply anything about size, only relative location. Inner to a larger area could be several solar systems across.

FREAKYSINS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:19 PM

The Phrase "core planets" came from my post, but now you've got me doubting that I actually heard that on Firefly, because I can't recall the exact line. It may well have been "inner planets".

Regardless, and as was stated earlier, we don't have enough information as yet to make any kind of realistic decisions. The bottom line is, it's Joss' 'verse, and if he wants to make it 70+ moons orbiting a gigantic galactic cheese wheel, I'm going to watch it anyway and love every second of it.

"I wanna go to the crappy planet where I'M a hero!"

FREAKYSINS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:19 PM

Doh!! Double-post!!

GROUNDED

Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lodril:
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
I don't think I used the word 'core' anywhere in my post! I said 'inner planets'

I stand corrected. :)

Much of the same logic applies though. "Inner", and I think they also used "central", could have non-spatial meaning (less likely than Core, I suppose), but also don't imply anything about size, only relative location. Inner to a larger area could be several solar systems across.

I understand the logic but, for me, it just doesn't gel with the idea of multiple systems. 'Inner planets' is already an established term (of course it doesn't have to used in its established sense...) and ties in more with concentric orbits around a sun than with systems among a group. But like I said before, I'm not sure I've quoted correctly - 'inner planets' may never have been mentioned. I suppose that's excuse enough to go watch the whole lot again :)

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE