The "Everyone is Right Theory" on Firefly Planets

POSTED BY: JavidRho
UPDATED: Friday, March 5, 2004 15:35
VIEWED: 8854
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

JAVIDRHO

Monday, March 1, 2004 2:10 PM

Hi all,

I've been following all of the treads on the subject of "single vs. multiple solar system" over the past year, and just last night, I think I came up with one answer that might make everyone happy (not possible, I know).

Forgive me if this has already been stated, but in all of my reading, I have not seen this take on the subject.

--- the "Everyone is Right" theory ---

What if there are multiple star systems, but Serenity only flies around one particular sun?
This would allow for 70 or more planets (settled by humans) and also allow for Serenity to not need FTL drive (she can only visit the planets in her solar system).

Think about it, the crew have only visited a handful of planets in the dozen or so episodes created, and, in fact, they have visited several planets or moons twice. This would imply that they might be restricted to a single solar system.

If I told you that there are 100,000 cities on the Earth, but I travel around by bicycle, you wouldn't try to figure out how I can visit all of them in my lifetime. Who said I was going to ? And following that logic, who says that Serenity is able to visit all 70 earth-type planets in the galaxy?

Now, this could leave the door open for the big city-sized Alliance ships to have FTL drive if you want, but Serenity wouldn't need them. She's a small cargo ship and being "stuck" in one solar system seems fitting...

I'm now off for a week-long research cruise in the Chesapeake Bay (in my own kind of firefly class vessel), so I won't be able to respond to this thread till I return on the 8th. So, someone jump in and tell us all what does or doesn't work with this theory...

If this ideas has already been stated, then just let it die a slow death at the bottom on the thread stack - I won't mind

HANS

Monday, March 1, 2004 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JavidRho:
Hi all,

I've been following all of the treads on the subject of "single vs. multiple solar system" over the past year, and just last night, I think I came up with one answer that might make everyone happy (not possible, I know).

Forgive me if this has already been stated, but in all of my reading, I have not seen this take on the subject.

--- the "Everyone is Right" theory ---

What if there are multiple star systems, but Serenity only flies around one particular sun?
This would allow for 70 or more planets (settled by humans) and also allow for Serenity to not need FTL drive (she can only visit the planets in her solar system).
(stuff cut)

While I still like the "one system" theory best, this is a very interesting and creative compromise.

One of the reasons I disliked the multiple systems theory is that so many sci-fi shows ignored the significant and major problems associated with FTL travel. They just assumed that warp speed (or whatever) was commonplace in their universe. To have a show like Firefly, where they seemed to be confined to a single system was a breath of fresh air. In your theory, FTL could exist, or maybe they just have "near-FTL" travel that takes several years to reach the other systems, which is the reason Serenity stays in that one system.

I have no solid evidence to contradict your theory. I would say that one of the reasons I support "one system" is the language used on the show - rim/border worlds, core/central worlds, moons vs terraformed planets, etc. The way they used that language always made me think of one system (but of course, that's open to interpretation).

Enjoy your cruise!

Hans

GATORMARC

Monday, March 1, 2004 8:31 PM

Has anyone made a list of all of the planets and moons that they've visited and how many times?

Perhaps they are limited to one system, a system that is several light years from the core of the alliance.

Perhaps later, Joss will tackle the issues with travelling from system to system in this case? Does only the Alliance have the resources necessary to travel between systems?

GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.

LINDLEY

Monday, March 1, 2004 9:00 PM

^FireFlyFans has a planet guide.

There's too much use of the word "Galaxy" for it to be a single system, I think. Despite how interesting that would be.

RANGER

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 4:10 AM

I like this idea. It would answer a lot of questions without going into too much techno-babble. One question that still needs to be answered is how Ariel is a "Core" planet, but that is easy enough. If the Alliance controls interstellar travel, then any planet that you can leave the system from is part of the "Core".

Traveller, if you go to Sparta, tell them you have seen us lying here as the Law commands.

DRAKON

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
One of the reasons I disliked the multiple systems theory is that so many sci-fi shows ignored the significant and major problems associated with FTL travel. They just assumed that warp speed (or whatever) was commonplace in their universe.

Sigh, and around and around we go.
First off, new research shows that FTL may not be as problematic as you think it might be. It is even allowed for under General Relativity. The "significant and major problems" are not that signficant, at least in the theoretical sense, and boil down to a question of technology and understanding how to achieve the effect.

Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.

Just as transporters give you replicators in Star Trek, it is hard to imagine having the ability to turn gravity on and off aboard ship and NOT having the ability to use that in a warp drive system. Especially since the theoretical groundwork has already been laid.

I think the problem is that things have changed since most of us were in school, and this new research only dates back to 1994 at the earliest. But we are stuck with two big problems. A solar system (or system of closely bound solar systems) that has 70 life supporting planets in it. Or FTL. In light of the most recent research on the subject, the first proposition is far more unreasonable than FTL travel is.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

HANS

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Sigh, and around and around we go.
First off, new research shows that FTL may not be as problematic as you think it might be. It is even allowed for under General Relativity. The "significant and major problems" are not that signficant, at least in the theoretical sense, and boil down to a question of technology and understanding how to achieve the effect.

As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store. It presents unique problems which require unique solutions - and for me, when I see Firefly, it seems quite clear to me that the writers were thinking the same way. Certainly they have been willing to break many other cliches seen on sci-fi shows. Other people see different things.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.

That's a rather blanket statement, not really backed up by real science. I could just as easily say "If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, you can terraform just about any world to be earth-like".

And, if you are correct that the level of superscience required to have multiple worlds in a single system is around the same as the level needed for FTL, then that certainly does not rule out the single system theory. In my mind it strengthens it, since there's so much other evidence in favour of one-system.

However, based on the limited evidence of the 14 episodes, I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind... :)

Hans

SINGULARITY

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1:40 PM

What everyone seems to forget is that we all love this show. We all miss this show. We want more. Of everything. Story, character backgrounds, technology, you name it we want it. We can yak until the cows come home in little bundles of cookable mush, but we can not answer them with out the help of Joss and all the people who made this work of fiction seem so real to all of us. I would love to ask Joss. I would love to know more. But I can simply watch each episode and enjoy them. I can look at each character and say I miss you. I would hope that when these notions of opinions get bumped around the net we can all take stock in the simple joy of what we have, not what we don't

As long as we remember, Serenity will always fly.

DRAKON

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store. It presents unique problems which require unique solutions - and for me, when I see Firefly, it seems quite clear to me that the writers were thinking the same way. Certainly they have been willing to break many other cliches seen on sci-fi shows. Other people see different things.

Well I sort of see where you are coming from, but I disagree. Its like complaining that all cop shows have cars or guns or those clique badges they are always flashing.

Also there is an economic issue involved. Interstellar travel should be pretty lucrative, which in turn would reduce the costs for doing just that. The more lucrative something is, the bigger the market, generally speaking, you get economies of scale and competition which would make that product easier to use and more prevalent in the world.

I don't think it will easy to get started. To figure out all the bits required to get it to work. But once you know how to do it, build it, it gets a lot easier and a lot less expensive. The first gas engines were hand tooled things. Now we got big assembly lines producing them 24/7.

Quote:
Quote:
Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.

That's a rather blanket statement, not really backed up by real science. I could just as easily say "If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, you can terraform just about any world to be earth-like".

Actually the research is simply not presented here. I am trying to be brief, and have gone over it on this site a number of times. It does exist, and you don't have to believe me, you can research it yourself. Check out LANL archives, notably the paper by Alcubierre and the resulting debate on it. You might also look at the work by Matt Visser on wormholes. Essentially if you get gravity manipulation you get both. Its just a matter of twisting it in the right shape.

Quote:
And, if you are correct that the level of superscience required to have multiple worlds in a single system is around the same as the level needed for FTL, then that certainly does not rule out the single system theory. In my mind it strengthens it, since there's so much other evidence in favour of one-system.

This is another point we disagree. Making a ship go faster than light seems pretty reasonable. Both from a science perspective as well as economics. Taking an asteroid and giving it a 1G gravity? While it may be technically feasible, it looks to be far more expensive, possibly prohibitively so.

There is no evidence that it is a single system, with the exception of one comment by the Blue Hand Crew. And that could have been metaphor, or hyperbole or whatever the literary term for saying something not literally true, just figuratively true.

There is no evidence for FTL either. And this is where the entire thing breaks down to a religious argument. There is insufficient evidence to postulate either way. There is or is not FTL and there is or is not more than one star system. We really have no way of telling either way given the available data. So any position has to be taken on faith, rather than evidence.

One way or the other, one of

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 2:07 PM

I still maintain the one system theory, there is no reason to assume they go faster than light, but certainly very fast sub light speeds would make travel times i9n a large system make sense, a large habitability zone, the ability to change gravity, and proper teraforming would seem to make the idea seemless.

Don’t forget we live in a small solar system (based on size of the star and thus space for orbits) and we have 70 worlds spinning.

I like the idea of everybody’s right, but I see no need for it. After we learn that they can change the gravity of a planet it all falls into place.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE