system or galaxy - what are the facts?

POSTED BY: Tiger
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 21:46
VIEWED: 23608
PAGE 8 of 9

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

TIGER

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:06 PM

SYSTEM OR GALAXY - PROBLEM SOLVED

After reading all the posts (most of which are wild speculation, wishful thinking, or attempts to justify a speculative fiction story with real science), I realized I would just have to watch the DVDs again.

I started this thread hoping to find facts that showed the writer's intentions for the Firefly 'verse, and I'm glad to report I have:

Quote:
Originally posted by ZEKE023:
I actually asked one of the script writers over on FOX's site. He said that the script writers had no idea... it was left deliberately ambiguous.

So the answer is: whatever you want it to be.

MYSTERY SOLVED!! This thread can now officially end. :-)

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

THEREALME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:22 PM

But Tiger, I was just getting going!

I have no doubt that you have the REAL answer, but I'd rather not end the thread...

The Real Me

TIGER

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THEREALME:
I have no doubt that you have the REAL answer, but I'd rather not end the thread...

All in good fun.

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
So the answer is: whatever you want it to be.

Except that this is a group seeking an answer. So perhaps it needs to be "whatever we all want it to be." That, or "Joss said it's this..."

Perhaps it will be resolved in the BDM, but if not, it would be beneficial to come to a consensus (impossible?) or get an official answer for those of us that want to write, or roleplay, or game in the Firefly universe.

I don't mind leaving it all up to the individual, as it is, I love Firefly and have fun filling in the gaps myself. And maybe every other person's story or game can assume either One System or One Galaxy, or invent an entirely new solution, but this seems messy to me. We all can't ignore this very basic issue forever.

Oh, and play Strange Adventures in Infinite Space. http://digital-eel.com/sais

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Amnesiac:
1 Interstellar travel and FTL are kind of synonymous, aren’t they?

No.

Quote:
2 It would take generations to reach even the nearest blue stars.

Not really.

Quote:
3 And um, aren’t blows to the head with rocks often fatal?

Often, but not usually. It’s actually an expression. To take it literally would be a mistake.

Quote:
4 I really don’t think I was off topic

I didn't say you were.

Quote:
5 I had read the other posts.

Look at the quote I have labeled 2. If you had read the other posts you would know that this is not necessarily the case. As such the fact you said it causes me to doubt that you have read the posts.

The idea that travel between stars a slower than light speeds would take a long time is based on the idea of absolute time. This is odd, to say the least, as there is no such thing.

For example, lets say you move at near the speed of light. Time almost stops for you, the closer you go to lightspeed the slower it goes. If you got close enough to it practically no time would pass for you at all. Why then would you say that a long time had passed when it so clearly hadn’t?

Another example:

You are on a sleepership. Everyone is cryogenically frozen like River was. You go to sleep one day, you wake up the next. You are at your destination. For the ship a lot of time has passed but not for you. For you it is one day, after all if you don’t base time on your perception what do you base it on? The time that passed on the ship? The time that passed on earth? These two things are different, as said there is no absolute time. So how do you chose?

The most logical explanation is you don’t. If you were six years old when you went in you are six years old when you come out because you haven’t aged a day.

In both of these it does not take generations. In both of these there is no FTL travel. Both of these have been brought up before. Why then would you state as fact something that these disprove if you had read them?

SIKKUKUT

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:49 AM

Wow, this is getting ugly.

I don't think I like comparing artificial gravity and FTL. Somebody did well to point out that it takes an Earth-sized mass to generate 1 gravity, but it also takes a relatively insignificant amount of acceleration. That's a huge range of energy requirements that an artificial gravity field will fall somewhere within... in other words, meaningless.

Warping space enough to actually break it, on the other hand, is insanely hard. I seem to recall reading something about 2 metal plates with roughly Earth's diameter, held rigid a few meters apart and charged many times greater than the power output of our entire civilization, being enough to create a wormhole.

I'll buy that giant gleaming Starfleet (or Alliance?) ships could, with undreamt of technology probably linked to artificial gravity fields, possibly do this. But a little junker like Serenity (all pardons to Kaylee)? Civilian merchants with access to that kind of power output? Seems unlikely to me. And more than unlikely, out of flavor.

Note the lack of sci-fi trappings. No aliens. No transporters/teleporters. No space battles. No sound in space. Heavy emphasis on the possible, it seems to me. If FTL exists in this universe, then it is (correct me if I'm wrong) the ONLY overt contradiction of existing physics. I simply don't buy it.

Of course, the real secret behind artificial gravity in Firefly is that ships that spin for gravity look silly (and can't land) and microgravity scenes are very difficult to film. And the real secret behind this whole debate is, as others have mentioned, that it doesn't matter.

The Joss, if he's watching, is either sitting back and laughing hysterically that we're debating this at such length, or glowering at us for wasting time worrying about something that he obviously went to great lengths to downplay and leave ambiguous.

I don't for a second, however, buy the argument that he didn't think about it. It should be clear by now that he thought about every aspect of this show in painstaking detail. The man is intelligent, creative, and savvy, and seems to have a penchant for deep backstories. He wouldn't-- couldn't, I'd say-- create a universe with such a gaping hole in it.

When I was first watching the show, it bugged me that they seemed to cross interstellar distances without even mentioning it. Then it dawned on me that maybe they WEREN'T crossing interstellar distances. Let's face it, going that far and necessarily using non-Einsteinian space to do it would be such important parts of every day life that not mentioning them would simply be clumsy. Designing a universe where you don't need to go that far would be elegant.

Look at the rest of Firefly-- and I'm talking overt facts, not minor technical blunders like relative velocities and being able to see the freakin' laser beam (very disappointing)-- Look at the rest of the Firefly 'Verse and tell me whether it goes for the fantastic or the realistic, the mundane or the original, the clumsy or the elegant.

Ehh? Ehh?

___________________________
"You're mean. Firefly's making me reconsider my lifelong devotion to Star Trek." --My mother

RELFEXIVE

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:54 AM

Firstly... unless you can accelerate to near lightspeed instantaneously, it will take time to reach that speed. And since we're talking about slowly increasing relativistic time dilation as the speed increases, we can only be talking about local i.e. ship time. So on the ship, it will take a lot of (local) time to accelerate and decelerate, probably much more than the time taken to actually travel at the desired PSL, presuming they don't employ the "flip over halfway" principle that works at more sedate speeds.

For Earth time, it would take much longer, and there's no "appear to" about it. In the Earth frame of reference, a long time would pass. And since it's Earth financing this thing, too long (for them) could mean too risky. So from a "resources/financing/will to do it" perspective, how long it takes by Earth reckoning is very important. Who wants to spend the money required for a high PSL sleepership when it might take centuries to profit from it?

And secondly, let's not forget that cryogenic suspension does not magically halt time, it only preserves you better by effectively almost-killing you and freezing you for a very long time. Presuming it works, of course, and the ice crystals in your cells don't rupture them and kill you or, in the case of brain cells, make you an idiot or a vegetable.

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RelFexive:
For Earth time, it would take much longer, and there's no "appear to" about it. In the Earth frame of reference, a long time would pass. And since it's Earth financing this thing, too long (for them) could mean too risky. So from a "resources/financing/will to do it" perspective, how long it takes by Earth reckoning is very important. Who wants to spend the money required for a high PSL sleepership when it might take centuries to profit from it?

Now I'm confused. No one is left on earth. It says the whole race got up and left. So who would care about earth time? It might take centuries on earth, but no one is there. Also the profit intended is saving the species, which would, from the perspective of the people, happen almost immediately.

Quote:
And secondly, let's not forget that cryogenic suspension does not magically halt time, it only preserves you better by effectively almost-killing you and freezing you for a very long time. Presuming it works, of course, and the ice crystals in your cells don't rupture them and kill you or, in the case of brain cells, make you an idiot or a vegetable.

No one said it did halt time. Read the post again. What it said is that it halts your perception of time. Humans base things on their perception. If all of the people on earth were cryogenically frozen for ten years (don’t ask why, it’s hypothetical) they would not all claim to be ten years older. If the last birthday you celebrated was your 31st the next you celebrate will be your 32nd. This is because people base things on their perception.

They would have to change the date to reflect the time that had passed, there are important things that require an accurate calendar, but otherwise they would go on as if no time had passed at all.

Now with earth long gone in Firefly there would be no need to change the calendar so if you went into cryogenic suspension on the 23 of May 2213 you would come out on the 24 of May 2213. This is not saying that only one night has passed, it is saying that all of the days in between would not be given a date as they don’t matter to the people.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 1:15 PM

I was going to explain the expression “sometimes I want to hit someone over the head with a rock” as it has a lot of meaning to it and is not at all hostile. However I decided to leave it at this: it is meant to evoke repeated frustration directed at no particular person.

I thought it was more important to deal with that frustration than explain the tool I used to try to show it. I’m frustrated by the fact that people, multiple people, don’t seem to read the posts of others and repeat the same arguments over and over again. There is no need to say a theory, fact or conclusion one more than once.

Instead it would be better if we only repeated things to refute them or defend them, in which case we should present new information.

I propose that we do this, starting now. First we should put all of the facts, theories and conclusions in one place. After which we should not repeat them instead only adding new information.

-

On the chance that people agree I’ll start this off by stating things off the top of my head that either support or do not contradict (though they have been said to contradict) the one system theory, others should add to this but not repeat what is said. Someone, preferably someone who supports it, should present the things that support the multiple system theory.

After this people should not restate what is stated in these posts. If they do not have a stated reason to dispute something they should take it as fact. The only reason anything here should be revisited is disputing it or refuting as dispute with it. In either case new arguments should be presented.

-

First off we know that a single star can support more than 70 “earths”. As such it would be nice if people stop saying it can’t. If a single star can do it than a multiple star single system could also do it. This covers both variations of the single system theory.

Second interstellar travel does not require faster than light transportation. Nor does it necessarily take generations. (Sleeper ships is my bet, time dilation could to it too.)

Third we know that there are central planets, often known as core worlds. These are the most advanced worlds and thus the most likely to have been colonized first (otherwise how would the get so much more advanced?)

In a multiple system theory there is no center.

If they all went off in different directions than we could call the center earth, but we have evidence that there are non central planets in “short range” of central ones implying that they may be in the same system. Further the most likely way to start a system is to begin with one planet. It then only makes sense to move to others in the same system. As such many, if not all, first planets would have secondary planets radiating out from it. It would make no sense to call the earlier planets central in this case because there would, at least sometimes, be non core worlds between them.

If they went in one direction, starting in one system. They likely chose the closest one that they could teraform. (It has been suggested by a multiple system believer that this goes against the one system idea, I’ll show later why it doesn’t.) Therefore it seems unlikely that they would go back in a direction that they know is devoid of any teraformable planets. This would make the systems used move outward in a largely sideways direction. The first and most advanced planets would not be central, they could be on one side.

In a single system there is a center, in fact central planets is a term that exists today referring to a single system.

The central planets in our own system are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. (If memory serves they are actually believed to be the largest as well. It’s hard to tell how large the actual planet part of a gas giant is as the atmosphere is so huge. For this reason the atmosphere is almost always considered part of the planet considerably increasing its accepted size.)

Current theories on creation of gas giants state that all non central planets will be gas giants. T

BARNSTORMER

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
I think it has to be a Star Cluster. Meaning an area of space that has several stars in relatively close proximity to each other. There are thousands (hundreds of thousands) of these star clusters known to exist.

The ONE main fact that I know of, that points to Joss and Tim and the other writers showing us this in a loose fashion is the following:

In the episode Safe, The first two scenes are of Serenity landing on a planet, and then they show the three "really nice kidnappers" skinning the rabbit. In these two scenes, the lighting used for these two outdoor daytime scenes is an intense blue/white color. Meaning the sun in that particular solar system comes from a blue/white dwarf star. This could even be THE "Blue Sun" that evil corporations are named after.

After these two scenes, the outdoor lighting color becomes a much less annoying yellow color that we earth dwellers are used to. I think they did this on purpose, to show this light was from a totally different type of star than any of the other planets they had landed on, but then they shifted the color spectrum so as not to annoy the viewers for the rest of the episode.

Joss seems to really want to steer clear of the Star Trekian technobabble. Like detailed descriptions of Warp Bubbles and saving the day time and time again with Inverse Tachyon beams. I don't fault him on this in the least. The interpersonal relationships and the story arc he is telling are of much more importance to me.

But he does put in the occasional hint.

What do you think of this observation everyone?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

OK, no responses on this observation/theory?

Helllloooooooooooo
Is anyone out there?

If I'm way off base, then tell me.

I'm a large, semi muscular man.....I can take it.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

It seems that the question has been answered.
Check out the below thread. Then check out the website mentioned

WARNING....There be spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!

Monday, July 12, 2004 22:08 TIMES READ: 187
Sneak peek at Serenity art
IRONCLADOTTER

Sooooo..... have recently discovered that the brilliant and talented graphic designer Geoffrey Mandel has been working on "Serenity". I've been a fan of Geoff's work since "Space: Above & Beyond", and I can't tell you how pleased I am by this news, and how much I'm looking forward to seeing his artistic contribution to the Big Damn Movie. Really, there are no words for how freaking cool I think that is... I'm an art student and would like to grow up to be Just Like Geoff. Except for the part where he's a man and I'm not. I can do without the whole man thing.

In other good news, you can see some of Geoff's artwork for "Serenity" on the Internet. There are some ads, a new "Serenity" logo, a "worlds of the Alliance" chart and some nifty insignias and maps and such.

http://www.geoffreymandel.com

On a side note. It looks like I was right...

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

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