FTL or not FTL...
POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Friday, May 14, 2004 20:35
VIEWED: 17361
PAGE 4 of 9
There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.
At most, we could withstand a constant acceleration of about 1.5G (half again the currect gravity of Earth that is). That means, and I forget the exact number, but it would take something like either centuries or millenia to reach Alpha Centari at the 1.5G acceleration curve--you spend half the distance in acceleration, the other half in deceleration...
So, FTL is a must.
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These are all very interesting comments. I’m not sure that any of them reflect what the writers were contemplating, only because I don’t think the writers ever intended this much examination of the physics and celestial mapping of Firefly.
My own personal opinion is that many of these problems could be cleared up if the whole 70-earths rhetoric was dropped. From my meager background in astrophysics I’ve done what little calculation I’ve been able to do, and while I have been able to fit 70 hard-bodied earth or near-earth sized satellites within the life-zone of a relatively large star, it is an egregious balancing game. One that I don’t believe would likely occur naturally.
And of course the problems with interstellar flight is obvious.
Neither of these problems really needs be considered, the reality is that a large star could easily support, say twelve hard-bodied earth-sized satellites in orbits that would allow them to sustain life for a sufficient timeframe. And twelve earth- or near earth-sized planets would offer more then enough diversity of landscape and setting. The problem, I think, is this notion that there must be the appearance of an infinite number of distinct worlds or that each planet must be homogenous and represent only one setting. This is a sci-fi hang up that is long past overdone. In any earth-like world there would be an enormous diversity of landscapes and possible settings, individual cultures, provinces/states.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Think of it this way; suppose an FBI man had business in (say) Sacramento, but then a hot lead pops up in San Jose, so he spends three hours commuting; he'd be understandably peeved at the waste of time if the lead doesn't pan out; and might very well say "I didn't drive a hundred and ten miles to investigate a robbery..." or somesuch. That doesn't mean he's limited to travel in a single state, now does it?
But, in your example he would be pissed in wasting time, not distance traveled. So, he would probably say "I didn't spend 3 hours over 110 miles to investigate a robbery...". People in general like to bitch about everything they can (experimentally verified
).In you example the FBI also knew that that lead didn't pan out where in my quote the blue hands men *just* got there.
You're also not addressing the value here. In your example it's just a lead, where here we are talking about River. Something that these people have proven that they will indiscriminately kill to get.
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
86 million miles might seem a far piece to go in one context, but be a light commute in another, just as a 110 mile trip is a far piece to travel in a car, but about ten minutes transit time on a commuter jet.
These guys are from a highly funded organization and trying to track down a highly valuable person to them. The likeliness that they would "drive" when they could take a "commuter jet" is unlikely.
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
But hey, the "One System/Many Systems" argument can't be settled without more data anyway; what evidence exists in the series as it stands now is contractictory at best. The argument can't be settled until (a) Joss makes a definative statement, or (b), new evidence come to light via the BDM or a new series (please, please, PLEASE...)
Untold amounts of true there
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.
Remember the Crazy Ivan. Half the crew were standing when that happened and none where thrown though the air. So it seems that there is some inertial dampener system, which would allow for high-speed travel.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Poppycock! Balderdash! It's far more likely that Book's line was meant to be taken metaphorically and the fact that they changed it, to clear up any confusion, pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the "one system" theory.
What are you basing the "taken metaphorically" on? Do you know that they changed it to clear up any confusion? Because if they did, it'd probably be so that they didn't have to get stuck with one system or galaxy. But, I think that it has become obvious that it has still introduced confusion.
But, then again we both just uttered the dreaded word(s)/phrases like, probably, far more likely, etc. Joss'll let us know if/when it's time.
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Think about it. First of all the one system theory rests on the unfounded assumption that there is no faster-than-light travel. If that's the case, how did we ever get to this system? And are you seriously suggesting that one system contains 'hundreds of new earths'?? The one system theory strains believability to the point of breakage.
And the many system theory is based on the unfounded assumption that there is FTL travel. Neither has proof, but, IMHO, no FTL has more evidence. This is of course all a matter of opinion. The truth may or may not be known when the BDM comes out. We'll all have to wait until then.
And it has been said that Joss isn't really a techie so if he meant they went from one to another system I highly doubt that he thought about how they got there as it has never really affect story/plot. But, then there is that nasty thing called speculation again.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
So, they're not here. They're also not on ANY of the other planets in the Solar system, because they are either completely impossible to terraform (some being made entirely of gas) or too far away to bother. Also, they all have names (Mars, Venus, etc) and would likely NOT be renamed.
Bad assumptions. We don't have any idea of how to actually go about the reality of terraforming, so, I don't think that any of us should place any limitation of that technology. Names change all the time.
And to your too far away. Don't you think that I would be more efficient to travel a few million miles to the moons of Jupiter then the nearest (or some other) star? And as you state that nearest star is 4.6 light years away.
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Alpha Centauri, which is 4.6 years travel time AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, and as far as we know, there's no planets there anyway...
Again, I don't think that any of us should make such statements as we are just figuring out how to find planets around other stars. So, they could be there and we just can't find them yet.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have any hang up with a need for diversity or a need for lack of diversity--there's just the fact that, a planet that can sustain human life without use of bio-domes and such has a fairly narrow range of distances it can be from a star without being either too hot or too cold. And you can't put too many planets around one star, because of gravitational problems... I guess planet moons could help... but you get the point.
Also, as far as the "Core" versus the "Rim" planets--hate to borrow from Star Wars or Star Trek, but it could easily just mean the group of systems around which the main colonies were established, with other star systems at the outskirts.
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have any hang up with a need for diversity or a need for lack of diversity--there's just the fact that, a planet that can sustain human life without use of bio-domes and such has a fairly narrow range of distances it can be from a star without being either too hot or too cold. And you can't put too many planets around one star, because of gravitational problems... I guess planet moons could help... but you get the point.
Also, as far as the "Core" versus the "Rim" planets--hate to borrow from Star Wars or Star Trek, but it could easily just mean the group of systems around which the main colonies were established, with other star systems at the outskirts.
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have any hang up with a need for diversity or a need for lack of diversity--there's just the fact that, a planet that can sustain human life without use of bio-domes and such has a fairly narrow range of distances it can be from a star without being either too hot or too cold. And you can't put too many planets around one star, because of gravitational problems... I guess planet moons could help... but you get the point.
Also, as far as the "Core" versus the "Rim" planets--hate to borrow from Star Wars or Star Trek, but it could easily just mean the group of systems around which the main colonies were established, with other star systems at the outskirts.
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.
Remember the Crazy Ivan. Half the crew were standing when that happened and none where thrown though the air. So it seems that there is some inertial dampener system, which would allow for high-speed travel.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
Remember that they were all told to hold onto something first?
Also, normal speeds are not to be compared with fractions of light...
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME