Gravity Onboard
POSTED BY: iwasafrycook
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 16:52
VIEWED: 3086
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:The best shot of the map of the verse shows one star and one system.
Originally posted by daveshayne:
There is a little bit of controversy considering that. It is possible the system of the 'Verse contains multiple stars.
But it doesn't show dozens of planets. Consider the scene in the classroom. The monitor is projecting details of the stellar system called The 'Verse. First it shows one planet and then it zooms out to show a single star with 14 orbits scribed around it. Then the camera switches to the teacher and we don't see the map anymore. Consider the possibility that the map may have been about to zoom out again to show companion stars with planets orbiting them as well. Otherwise consider the possibility that Alliance teachers routinely lie about the number of planets in the 'Verse in a really obvious way for no reason. Otherwise consider the possibility that the word dozen doesn't mean the same thing in the 'Verse as it does to us.
Personally I'm in the companion stars camp.
David
"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The map is still in the background and it doesn't zoom out any further.
But it doesn't show dozens of planets. Consider the scene in the classroom. The monitor is projecting details of the stellar system called The 'Verse. First it shows one planet and then it zooms out to show a single star with 14 orbits scribed around it. Then the camera switches to the teacher and we don't see the map anymore.
Quote:Companion stars? What do you mean? A stellar cluster or a Binary/Trinary system?
Consider the possibility that the map may have been about to zoom out again to show companion stars with planets orbiting them as well.
A binary or Trinary star system is still a single system, and doesn't really gel with what we've been shown.
A star cluster can be discounted because no matter how densely packed the stars are they will be too far away from each other for space travel not utilising FTL (which we know they don't have in the 'Verse). It would also be completely impractical for the Alliance to govern such an expanse, especial since we can ascertain with a high degree of certainty that there is no FTL communications either.
Quote:People habitually misuse language. People say 'a couple' when they mean several.
Otherwise consider the possibility that the word dozen doesn't mean the same thing in the 'Verse as it does to us.
In FireFly they call it a 'Verse when it isn't even a galaxy, let alone a Universe.
They refer to a planetary moon system as a 'system' a word we reserve for star systems.
Dozens is a fuzzy term that could as easily refer to ten as thirty six. People will say dozens to indicate a lot, point is fuzzy terms don't carry much weight, if she'd said "there's exactly thirty six planets" it would be different, but given the choice between a fuzzy statement and the fact that travel between stars in a star cluster would take years if not decades at sub-light velocities I know what I'm going to believe.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When you get closer to the core of the galaxy, you have much more tightly packed clusters; often just a few light days. As Serenity can go at up to two percent of light speed acording to the RPG, a cluster of stars is quite believable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That would be the centre where there is a huge amount of radiation and gravity from those stars and the super massive black hole would tear any planetary bodies apart?
I think we can discount that the verse is in the galactic centre 
.
The average distance between stars around the centre is actually a light week, but even given your figures at Serenity’s maximum speed that's a trip of ~100 days, at maximum burn. That's a lot of fuel.
Most clusters and certainly the ones that could support the verse are somewhat less densely packed, an average of 1.5 stars per cubic light year, giving average distances that would take decades to traverse at 2% light speed.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Companion stars? What do you mean? A stellar cluster or a Binary/Trinary system?
That's usually what's meant by the term companion star. I'm thinking more of a Trinary plus system examples of which are not unknown.
Quote:
A binary or Trinary star system is still a single system, and doesn't really gel with what we've been shown.
Yes a single system *with more than one star* which was the original point.
Quote:
They refer to a planetary moon system as a 'system' a word we reserve for star systems.
No we don't. I've heard plenty of talk regarding the Earth/Luna system also I'm sure I've seen reference to the Jhovian system regarding Jupiter plus moons.
Quote:
Dozens is a fuzzy term that could as easily refer to ten as thirty six.
Well a dozen is certainly fuzzy enough but dozens plural is a bit less so. You don't say your getting dozens of donuts if you're only buying 14. 20 planets - that could slide as dozens. 14 not so much.
But don't just take my word for the more than one sun theory take a look at the Oficial Visual Companion page 117. I count 7 objects that look much more like stars than planets and an awefull lot more planets than the 14 we see in the classroom.
David
"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I also take Joss's word for it when he said it was one system. I was talking about the Binary star system ages back when it seemed a better theory because it didn’t really conflict with what we’d seen (unlike the multiple star systems one) and the science is easier than the single star system. I dropped it because now it does conflict with things we’ve seen and to explain them away we have to start saying “Well the map was going to zoom out further, eventually…”
Given what we've been shown a single star system is more likely. Except for a single piece of artwork used in the film for a millisecond everything points to a single star. The map at the beginning, one star, any time we see the sun in the sky, there's one of them; ships flying through the system, one star. If there was any desire for the 'Verse to be portrayed as a Binary+ system, it would have appeared on screen at some point.
Personally knowing Joss has little grasp of scientific matters, what with them making him cry and all, I'd suspect he had one new system (which is actually said by Joss himself and in the original opening credits to the series) and he had a single star at the centre of that system.
Quote:It was in the context of the sentence.
No we don't. I've heard plenty of talk regarding the Earth/Luna system also I'm sure I've seen reference to the Jhovian system regarding Jupiter plus moons.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AAAAAAHGHHH!
Someone is putting science in my sci-fly! Make it stop!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I also take Joss's word for it when he said it was one system.
Nobody is disputing one system. The dispute is on the number of stars (and ultimately planets and moons) in that system. I don't think a single star with 14 planets is big enough to hold the 'Verse. And since there is no firm evidence disputing multiple stars and one firm piece of evidence that does support multiple stars in the system I conclude that the multiple star system is the most likely solution. It's certainly got enough evidence for it that you really can't be justified in saying that it's not possible no way no how which appears to be what you're arguing here.
Quote:
I dropped it because now it does conflict with things we’ve seen and to explain them away we have to start saying “Well the map was going to zoom out further, eventually…”
The multiple star theory conflicts with what that we have seen exactly? What specific piece of published/filmed/refered to information makes multiple suns impossible? Nothing. I've got a map of Chicago in my apartment. Just because it doesn't zoom out any farther there is no reason to say that the rest of the US doesn't exist.
David
"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Hey,full well there are two suns."
unless I be wrong our own Milkyway Galaxy could qualify as another place in space were other spacecraft like vehicles could travel around using their solar powered equipment. That is unless the Milkyway is a totaly dead idea. We may have left earth that was to find a better place but my brother didn't have the correct change to pay for the bus ride. He stayed.
Z
pass the mudders milk please
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SameErtia:
AAAAAAHGHHH!
Someone is putting science in my sci-fly! Make it stop!
Sorry. For my part in what happened.
David
"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME