system or galaxy - what are the facts?

POSTED BY: Tiger
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 21:46
VIEWED: 23608
PAGE 4 of 9

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

SPACEMANSPIFF

Saturday, July 10, 2004 8:42 AM

Thisd has to be one of my favorite discussions when it comes to Firefly. I've posted my opinions a few times before, but what's one more?

I should mention first that I am an astronomer, for what it's worth.

I'm a fan of the "one system" theory. I think it's a relatively new idea in sci-fi, after the "we run around the galaxy" stuff has been done. A lot of people don't grasp the enormity of space, and it's difficult to wrap one's mind around the sizes in our own solar system.

Here's some thoughts...

1. A large star could hold a large solar system. This covers a lot of the arguments made. A large star would be blue...hence, the Blue Sun corp. A large star has a much larger habitable zone (the volume around the star that roughly recreates Earth-like conditions) that could easily hold 70+ habitable or terraformable planets/moons. Example: An G-type star (Sol) has a habitable zone from about 0.85-2.0 AU, encompasing Venus, Earth and Mars. An A-type star (Sirius, ~7 lyrs. away) would have a habitable zone from about 1.5-3.6 AU, a >3x increase in area. Add to this the fact that very large gas giants emit a great deal of heat due to gravitational collapse, which can warm up a moon (and does around Jupiter), and your habitable zone can increase further. Each of the large gas giants could hold many livable moons, and that could be what the term "system" in-show describes. A large star would be easy to find, measure, and aim for (large gravity well) from Earth.

2. Serenity is never shown in non-Einsteinian space. This is very arguable...who knows what FTL travel looks like? The "hard burn" was done in atmosphere, and I don't think something designed to boost a ship to >c could be done in atmo. Fusion is the best explanation of the drives, given what we've seen of the ship in action.

3. The sector argument: Dividing a disk from the orbit of Venus to the orbit of Saturn into 50 sectors makes each sector about 1.27x10^17 km, or roughly the entire area inside the Earth's orbit. While most of that is empty space, the Alliance could easily have hundreds of sectors in a large solar system, and still have Reavers, smugglers and criminals all over the place running free.

Aside from mentions of the galaxy and the universe in dialog (which I mark up to slang use), I've never seen or heard any good reasons or evidence for a galaxy-wide civilization in Firefly.

I really like the history given above, and I think the star cluster theory is a very interesting one. The biggest problem there is that star clusters such as binary and quad systems greatly decrease the chances of a solar system forming.

Spiff

SLOWSMURF

Saturday, July 10, 2004 9:26 AM

The only reason the sector arguement is given is that planets constantly move, thus having stationary sectors would be impossible. Having crazy moving sectors would also be quite odd, unless they were based off a single planet or something. However, having someone "8 sectors away from his jourisdiction" based purely on a planetary system seems a bit iffy.

CAM

Saturday, July 10, 2004 9:29 AM

I haven't read most of this discussion, but in the pilot doesn't the first guy who tries to sell book passage say something like "we're going all across the spiral"?

Nevermind, he says "outer rings"...not really conclusive in either case.

CREVANREAVER

Saturday, July 10, 2004 6:47 PM

Another good reason for the One System Theory is the politics of it.

Think about it, why would the Alliance be willing to go to war over a bunch of colonies spread throughout the galaxy, or at least a few lightyears away. However, if they were in the same solar system as the central planets then it makes much more sense. Then they're closer to home and the action of those colonies definitely have greater affects on the entire Alliance, therefore they needed to control them.

DEWSHINE

Saturday, July 10, 2004 9:55 PM

there are very good arguments on both sides. Politics should play into the answer as well.
Is the allience more like the British empire at her height or more like China? The main difference being of course that Britian looked out at the ocean and said "that is mine, all mine" and China even at the height of power said "leave me alone, and don't touch my vassals either". Colonies in close by solar systems would be attractive to the former mindset and colonies in the same system would be attractive to the latter. Anyone have clues to the political mindset here? I almost think its more of a "British" flavor myself but the fact that China is a central partner and has centuries old emperial history (like thousands of years here)that even the current political climate cannot blow off also gives the views much weight.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, July 10, 2004 10:35 PM

I have always supported the one system theory. For one thing they describe the “hard burn” in one of the commentaries as a “fusion explosion behind the ship” Now I understand the idea of an external combustion engine such as this, though I’m not sure if it would work in space, and it doesn’t surpass lightspeed.

A external combustion engine just lets you ride a shockwave, I don’t know what kind of shockwave can exist in space, but the idea seems pretty simple.

Also we can see the ship move away when it shoots off. If it moved faster than light wouldn’t it disappear? I don’t know the way it works, but if in one second it is two light seconds away seems like there should be a gap there. Would seem that it should at least appear distorted.

Then there’s the fact that we see the reaver ship move by slowly, I assume this is because their relative speeds are slow even though compared to their points of origin they are moving quite fast. But last I checked something moving at the speed of light always seems to be moving at the speed of light. That wouldn’t allow for a slow passing.

Further we all know that 70 habitable bodies is possible in one system, but doesn’t it seem small for a “whole galaxy”?

-

I don’t remember most of what I knew about this. But all evidence I have seen seems to point to one system.

SLOWSMURF

Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:32 PM

They passed slowly because of a glaring and obvious technical error(that they admit even). That is not proof/evidence either way.

SPACEMANSPIFF

Sunday, July 11, 2004 12:29 AM

If a sector was defined as, say, "100,000 km radius around a planet it might work. But I see your point...there is no good way to make a planet-centered sector cover the entire solar system all the time. But maybe they don't need to? Maybe the only areas the Alliance are concerned with are around planets. I mean, almost everyone would have to come to one eventually, and it's the unguarded empty space in between that allows Reavers and smugglers to exist.

I think the big problem with using the visual effects as hard science evidence for any of the theories is that the visuals are never going to be completely correct. If they were, they would suck as visual effects.

A fusion drive wouldn't create a rideable shock wave, per se, but it does create so much radiative energy that that energy can be used for propulsion, the way we use chemical rockets now.

I think Joss would have had to make at least a general decision on this point. He may obscure it for the fans, but he has an idea of how large a volume Firefly takes place in.

Spiff

CREVANREAVER

Sunday, July 11, 2004 12:51 PM

Quote:
I think Joss would have had to make at least a general decision on this point. He may obscure it for the fans, but he has an idea of how large a volume Firefly takes place in.

I'm sure there will be hints as to whether or not Fireflyverse takes place in a single system or the entire galaxy in "Serenity." I've just got my fingers crossed the hollywood execs didn't pressure Joss into going the typical and overused route of the whole galaxy.

Unfortunately some of the promos I've read on the web lead me to believe my worst fear might be true.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, July 11, 2004 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SlowSmurf:
They passed slowly because of a glaring and obvious technical error(that they admit even). That is not proof/evidence either way.

You have a choice to make, do you trust the show or not? If you trust the show than you have to take everything, even admitted errors, as canon.

The exceptions are mics in camera and floating rocks.

That was a fairly significant scene, it would screw up a lot if we take it as an error. So instead we have to make up an explanation for it. The only one I can come up is that the relative speeds were slow.

There is a lot like that in both tv and in movies. Now they actually have to digitally add in some of the shadows of lightsabers in Star Wars. It was a glaring technical error to have a glowing thing leave not a glow, but a shadow. It was a glaring technical error. Now it’s a part of the movies and figures prominently in every theory of what a lightsaber really is.

In some cases this can’t be done, like all of the things with sound in space, but in this case there is a perfectly sensible explanation, so why ruin it by dismissing it as a piece of crap-science?

Quote:
Originally posted by SpacemanSpiff:
I think the big problem with using the visual effects as hard science evidence for any of the theories is that the visuals are never going to be completely correct. If they were, they would suck as visual effects.

Of course, but if we don't use what we see what do we use?

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