FTL or not FTL...

POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Friday, May 14, 2004 20:35
VIEWED: 17361
PAGE 1 of 1

BADGERSHAT

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:23 PM

Okay folks, I ain't no physicist, but those of you familiar with me know I read a thing or three here and there.

Here's the question--
Is Serenity traveling fater than light, and if so, how?

Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein (and there's a lot of reasons to do just that).

However, there's many that disagree, not so much with the faster than light, but with the speed of light itself--they think that the speed of light is NOT a constant velocity, it shifts in many cases due to various factors.

Is faster than light speed possible in normal space? Not bloody likely, but then again, you never know. Some say, the Conservation of Energy prevents it, some say it's just another speed. We in our lifetimes will likely not know the truth.

But, I don't think any of us can give more than an opinion on this matter, regardless of our reading habits. Theoretical physicists create.... wait for it... THEORIES. Theories are NOT facts, they are ideas on something, and ideas on how to maybe prove or disprove those somethings. Nothing more, nothing less.

The most brilliant minds in the world are in disagreement about this issue. There's the hypserstring idea, the quantum tunnelling idea, hyperspace, warp space, etc etc etc.

Personally, I think hyperspace is the true answer--a plane of existence in which everything is accelerated, meaning that even if we travel a fraction of lightspeed, that speed is exponentially faster than it would be in normal space. But, I don't know from theoretical physics and such.

Anyway, the long-since-buried point is, we shouldn't quibble over FTL or not FTL possibilities, because we simply don't know.

Oh, and just for the record, there IS sound in space, just WAAAAAYY below human hearing (it's recordable with highly sensitive instruments, because, after all, there IS air in space, it's just EXTREMELY thin--if space were a TRUE vacuum, everything within it would collapse, and we wouldn't be here to have this stimulating discussion).

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

DELIA

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:43 PM

Personally, I agree with Fred, that the more the more you are aware of time the more slowly it moves, which could make light speed travel possible, but only if you were to concentrate really hard.

Actually, I don't worry about it too much. It's science fiction, and I'm way more interested in the characters and the stories than all the techical details.

LIZ

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Delia:
Personally, I agree with Fred, that the more the more you are aware of time the more slowly it moves, which could make light speed travel possible, but only if you were to concentrate really hard.

But wouldn't you be concentrating really hard on trying to forget about time???

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:07 PM

Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

The original version of the pilot began with the following spoken intro, it was also printed out on the screen.

Quote:
The War to Unite the Planets was six years done and the victorious Alliance was spreading its control further and further throughout the galaxy.

Those who had fought for independence and so bloodily lost had no choice but to live by Alliance law.

Some never would and those few found themselves drifting, flying to the furthest reaches of the galaxy, to the worlds less civilized - some barely settled - where the Alliance might not control their lives.

These were hard worlds, and work was where you found it. Those who got by lived by a simple creed.

Any job, anywhere.

There you have it. They were traveling throughout the galaxy. Not much point in doing that if all the inhabitable planets exist in one system.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

I would also think that some of the reasons why that spoken intro was taken out was that it sounds corny and makes it seem too star trekish, too Sci-Fi. The one system theory seems more plausible. And I seem to think that being realistic (eg no aliens) was on the to do list for Joss given the way the universe is constructed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein (and there's a lot of reasons to do just that).

Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
However, there's many that disagree, not so much with the faster than light, but with the speed of light itself--they think that the speed of light is NOT a constant velocity, it shifts in many cases due to various factors.

Well, it is constant in the medium that it is in. So if it's in vacuum it's approx. 3x10^8 m/s, but, it would go at a different speed if in a different medium.

But, there is current research that is investigating if the speed of light has changed with the evolution of the universe (Something that we cannot manipulate).

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
The most brilliant minds in the world are in disagreement about this issue. There's the hypserstring idea, the quantum tunneling idea, hyperspace, warp space, etc etc etc.

I wasn't aware that hyper-strings or quantum tunneling could be used to create an FTL drive. I'd be interested in some references

But, as I am aware, warping space and space folding are just ways to get around the issue by making the distance between the two points shorter. Thereby creating the illusion of FTL travel, but, not actually breaking the rules. Nice ideas, eh

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Personally, I think hyperspace is the true answer--a plane of existence in which everything is accelerated, meaning that even if we travel a fraction of light-speed, that speed is exponentially faster than it would be in normal space. But, I don't know from theoretical physics and such.

I can't remember any real science on this. Did I miss (or forget) this in Kaku's Hyperspace? It's been awhile.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Anyway, the long-since-buried point is, we shouldn't quibble over FTL or not FTL possibilities, because we simply don't know.

We definitely don't know, very true. But, I still find it's fun to debate.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Oh, and just for the record, there IS sound in space, just WAAAAAYY below human hearing (it's recordable with highly sensitive instruments, because, after all, there IS air in space, it's just EXTREMELY thin--if space were a TRUE vacuum, everything within it would collapse, and we wouldn't be here to have this stimulating discussion).

Well, it depends on what you mean by "TRUE vacuum". There is a theory called dark energy which (as I know it) is used as an explanation of why we are seeing the galaxies accelerate away from us for no apparent reason. So, there would be that there even if no gas existed.

But, I don't see any reason that it would collapse if nothing existed in between. Could you elaborate, please?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

GROUNDED

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I find your use of the word 'just' here interesting

Can you give any example of a theory that would allow for such 'discontinuous' acceleration?

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I find your use of the word 'just' here interesting

Yah, I know, it's a big one

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Can you give any example of a theory that would allow for such 'discontinuous' acceleration?

I don't think that one exists. Asked the wife, and she's pretty sure that one doesn't exist either.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FOURSKYS

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:49 PM

Couple things:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I coule be misunderstanding this, but... Since acceleration is simply a change in velocity, there is no way to go from traveling less than the speed of light to grater than the speed of light (read: a change in velocity) without accelerating.

Quote:

Well, it depends on what you mean by "TRUE vacuum". There is a theory called dark energy which (as I know it) is used as an explanation of why we are seeing the galaxies accelerate away from us for no apparent reason. So, there would be that there even if no gas existed.

Having just come from a lecture dealing with Dark Energy (literally, walked into my office on my way back from the lecture, then checked the boards), I think I should probably comment here. Couple things:

1) If you define "True Vaccuum" as there being no matter ot speak of, then everything would not "fly apart", simply because gravity holds it all together. Most models that astrophysicists use pretend that the minimal amount of matter outside of stars and planets and such is actually not there. They don't take it into account because it's so minimal as not to affect anything. Nothing would fly apart, gravity is strong than that.

2) But yes, even in the perfect vaccuum there is something there. Vaccuum energy. This is essentially small quantum mechanical fluctuations in the amount of energy inherant in the fabric of space. So technically, you can't have a perfect vaccuum, because this vaccuum energy is actually creating and anhilating particles and anti-particles constantly, an effect which is key to Hawking Radiation, the reason black holes can evaporate.

3) But this vaccuum energy is possibly different from Dark Energy. Dark Energy is just a name given to something that astrophysicists can't quite explain. They know some of the properties, and they know what they want it to cause, but they don't know what it is or even very much about it. There have been hundreds of papers published in recent years as to what kind of theoretical formulation we can give to them. But, regardless, it's what's responsible for galaxies moving away from us at an increasing rate, as SigmaNunki wrote. Galaxies move away from each other at what originally seemed like a constant speed (The Hubble Parameter, formerly the Hubble Constant) depending on their distance from us. Recent observation of very distant supernovae seem to show that this rate of expansion of the universe (govered by the hubble parameter) may, indeed, not be constant. Now this is fine, since one would naturally expect that the universe, which contains mass, would slow down as it expands as gravity tries to hold it closed. Imagine a rock falling back to the earth after you throw it. But, the observations show that the exact opposite is happening. The universe is actually accelerating with time. The expasion rate is even greater now than it was in the early universe(I'm talking about after inflation and the big bang, these are different scenarios). This effect is what the concept of Dark Energy was created to explain. This change in the hubble paramater with time. Exactly what Dark Energy is is still a matter of great debate.

LJOSALF

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

I would also think that some of the reasons why that spoken intro was taken out was that it sounds corny and makes it seem too star trekish, too Sci-Fi. The one system theory seems more plausible. And I seem to think that being realistic (eg no aliens) was on the to do list for Joss given the way the universe is constructed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

As for 86 million miles being a far distance, keep in mind that they covered it in something less than 2 days, 3 at the tops. Jayne had to have a chance to contact the Feds, the Feds had to have a chance to contact the Hands of Blue, the HoB had to throw their little killing gadget in an overnight bag and hop a fast ship to Ariel. The planning and execution of the heist took approximately 3 days max; ergo, 86 million miles in about 2 days, or 1 day to accelerate and 1 day to decelerate. Even so not an appreciable percentage of light speed. Serenity kinda lumbers along by comparison.

Ljosalf

The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922)

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FourSkys:
Couple things:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I coule be misunderstanding this, but... Since acceleration is simply a change in velocity, there is no way to go from traveling less than the speed of light to grater than the speed of light (read: a change in velocity) without accelerating.

It is true that our current understanding of how things move does require acceleration. But, who knows what we'll dream up or realize in the future.

As mentioned prior it would require a discontinuity in velocity. How we go about getting that discontinuity or even if that is possible is for further study.

I'd say that this is unlikely, but, other barriers have been broken in the past, so, who knows.

Isn't science fun

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

RELFEXIVE

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:26 PM

As an example from SF, the reactionless drives from the Larry Niven books seemed to allow almost instant deceleration...

Then there are the various inertialess drives, like the ones in the Lensman books...

Of course, both of these fall outside our current understanding of science... again. Doesn't mean they are definitely and absolutely impossible though.

Maybe.

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."

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ljosalf:
As for 86 million miles being a far distance, keep in mind that they covered it in something less than 2 days, 3 at the tops. Jayne had to have a chance to contact the Feds, the Feds had to have a chance to contact the Hands of Blue, the HoB had to throw their little killing gadget in an overnight bag and hop a fast ship to Ariel. The planning and execution of the heist took approximately 3 days max; ergo, 86 million miles in about 2 days, or 1 day to accelerate and 1 day to decelerate. Even so not an appreciable percentage of light speed. Serenity kinda lumbers along by comparison.

Ljosalf

I think we are speaking of two different episodes. I was talking about "The Train Job" (no time was referenced in how long it took the blue hands to get there) and you seem to be talking about "Ariel" which we don't know where the blue hands were before they were called. Presumably they were close by as they are tracking River.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

I would also think that some of the reasons why that spoken intro was taken out was that it sounds corny and makes it seem too star trekish, too Sci-Fi. The one system theory seems more plausible. And I seem to think that being realistic (eg no aliens) was on the to do list for Joss given the way the universe is constructed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

We all seem to be forgetting, Persephone is here in the Solar system (is it one of the moons of Pluto or something? Can't recall, but it orbits our sun). I don't think there's ANY chance that the planets of Firefly are in the Solar system, they have to be elsewhere, meaning that FTL drive of some sort MUST be in Firefly, whether it's hyperspace, quantum tunneling, etc etc etc.

And it seems that Serenity is not a reactionless drive, so there must be aspects we haven't seen yet... or, Joss just doesn't give a crap about this particular aspect of SF...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

FORRESTWOLF

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:45 AM

Well, I'm being bad and not tracking back all the (I assume) various threads on Serenity's drives. But speaking from some experience in this area, my personal favorite is that Serenity just has your run-of-the-mill fusion reactor-based propulsion system. The enormous power levels that could be achieved (specific power, if we're getting technical) allow for specific impulses (gas mileage, if you will) that permit relatively reasonable propellant usages for interplanetary trips like you're discussing (earth-to-sun-type distances). And the power levels of fusion reactors would ALSO allow for trip times of only a few days (perhaps not 1-2 days, which is a bit on the fast side).

HOWEVER, it's been stated elsewhere that a) Serenity has "grav" technology of various kinds (for artficial gravity, if nothing else), which would make reaction-based drives like I'm describing possibly obsolete, and b) there is definitely a dichotomy present in the depiction of the 'Verse regarding solar system-vs.-galaxy. My own guess is that Joss and company haven't yet decided themselves (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they understand the issues) about FTL.

Anyway, in MY mind, Serenity uses a relatively "fuel-efficient" drive that probably expels something like its own mass in propellant between worlds, which is why it needs to refuel and why fuel IS an important issue. Also, in my mind, we're dealing with one solar system (I'm hoping for FTL and Alcubierre's warp drive and wormhole transport someday, but I like Joss's realistic feel to Firefly). But again, while I prefer those two answers, I think Joss has left enough ambiguity and outright contradictions in the show that we'll all be delightfully in the dark until he decides to enlighten us :)

If anyone wants to talk specific impulse, electric propulsion, fusion propulsion, or even spacetime metric modification in regards to Firefly, just let me know...I'll go on for far too long :)

- Forrestwolf the rocket scientist (no, really!)

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
...I don't think there's ANY chance that the planets of Firefly are in the Solar system, they have to be elsewhere,...

What are you basing this on?

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
...or, Joss just doesn't give a crap about this particular aspect of SF...

I think it has been said that Joss is a non-Techie, so, I would think that that is the most likely reason for the lack of detail in such areas.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

WANGENSTEIN

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:43 AM

Here's a way to effectively travel faster than light: time travel. If one travels forward or back in time without moving in space, one will travel to worlds that will be/were in or near the spot you are "now". More to the point, those worlds will travel to you. Ultimately it would be a very limited way to travel, as you would only encounter those things that will/have travelled through the general area you are "now".

Of course, this theory means that Marty McFly would have travelled back to 1955... and suffocated in the vacuum of space, with Earth some 30 years away. Oh well...

VETERAN

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wangenstein:
Of course, this theory means that Marty McFly would have travelled back to 1955... and suffocated in the vacuum of space, with Earth some 30 years away. Oh well...

Well maybe the flux capacitor in the Delorian accounted for the shift.

How far from Earth is the nearest system, that we know of, with planets? Joss says that FF is set 500 years in the future. Considering the time it would take to travel to the new system(s), establish the core planets, and terrafrom rim planets and moons, it seems FTL travel is likely.

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:15 AM

Quote:
But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

This is what I call "Rod Serling Science"; Rod would think nothing of putting in a line like "Look, two suns; we must be more than a million miles from Earth!" -- and he'd be serious about it! As good a writer as he was, he never understood that (for example) asteroids are way too small to have a natural atmosphere of any sort, let alone one that's breathable.

It didn't matter, because the stories were the thing.

Now, Joss is a bit more science-literate that the late, great Rod S. (as evidenced by the realism of Firefly's EVA scenes), but he's a lot more interested in advancing the plot than in plotting things on a warp-drive scale. It's a flaw, but a minor one, in the firefly context.

That aside, the line quoted doesn't convince me of the one system argument.

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?

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.

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...)

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

LJOSALF

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think we are speaking of two different episodes. I was talking about "The Train Job" (no time was referenced in how long it took the blue hands to get there) and you seem to be talking about "Ariel" which we don't know where the blue hands were before they were called. Presumably they were close by as they are tracking River.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Yup! My bad! no distances mentioned in Arial. Hangs head in shame. I'll be off in my corner now trying to recover my composure.

Ljosalf

The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922)

CYBERSNARK

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles.

Guys, you're forgetting one critical fact. Joss can't count.

(Buffy's age versus her date of birth. Spike being "barely 200" after being vamped in the late 1800s. Etc.)

Quote:
Originally posted by ljosalf:
the HoB had to throw their little killing gadget in an overnight bag and hop a fast ship to Ariel.

Okay, that's it. I so want to see a "Pulp Fiction" episode revolving around a pair of BlueHands.

It can be Firefly's big "departure" episode, like the Buffy musical, or the puppet Angel show.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:01 PM

Prof.: These are the dark matter engines I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.
Cubert: That's impossible! You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Prof.: Of course not! That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208!

HANS

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:
The War to Unite the Planets was six years done and the victorious Alliance was spreading its control further and further throughout the galaxy.

Those who had fought for independence and so bloodily lost had no choice but to live by Alliance law.

Some never would and those few found themselves drifting, flying to the furthest reaches of the galaxy, to the worlds less civilized - some barely settled - where the Alliance might not control their lives.

These were hard worlds, and work was where you found it. Those who got by lived by a simple creed.

Any job, anywhere.

There you have it. They were traveling throughout the galaxy. Not much point in doing that if all the inhabitable planets exist in one system.

SergeantX

Hmm, not sure of the source of that quote. However, one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favour of the single system theory is Book's intro (used in the first few episodes) where he says:

Quote:

After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system and hundreds of new 'Earths' were terraformed and colonized. The central planets formed 'The Alliance' and decided all the planets had to join under their rule...After the war, many of the Independents...drifted to the edges of the system, far from Alliance control.

To me, this is pretty definitive. If the unused quote mentioned above is genuine, the fact that the producers bothered to change the opening to be much more specific is just about the final nail in the coffin of the "many system" theory.

Yes, I know that the later show opening (narrated by Mal) talks about "a whole galaxy of earths". While this evidence supports the many systems theory, it is certainly a line that could be hyperbole or exaggeration, while the Book line seems to me to be very specific.

Hans

FARWALL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:21 PM

A few points from my sciencey-but-not-particularly-well-trained-in-physics brain.
Firsty, on the idea of jumping between discreet velocities (ie without acceleration, as mentioned earlier). When I read the idea it was instantly apparent to me that this is a similar idea to wormhole or bent-space travel. In the same way we imagine bending space to circumvent distantance between two points in space we can also image (with a little more difficulty perhaps) bending time to circumvent the distance between two points in time. Possibly. So acceleration (which = velocity/time and time is now 0) cannot be calculated (anything divided by 0 is not a number, as far as I know). Whether not being ably to calculate it means it doesn't actually happen, I'm not sure.

Secondly, the rather cunning idea of travelling through time and letting objects in space come to you might work (assuming the problems of Michael J. Fox's hideous exploding space-death could be worked out), but it'd be almost impossible to use it for anything other than exploration. For example, business travel - say you want to arrange a meeting with someone on a different planet. If you arrange the meeting with a present day contact, by the time you get to their offices you'll either be very, very late (depending on which way and how far you travelled) and so inter-planetary business would be really slow moving. Or you'd be very, very early which would mean your contact would have no idea about the deal you've showed up to discuss.

And lastly, while it is fun to debate people's theories on the physics/mechanics/astronomy of the 'Verse, I think it's pretty pointless anyone trying to assert that their version is 'what Joss intended' 'cause I really don't think the creative team behind Firefly care about that aspect of the show. They're fare more concerned with interesting characters and cool stories. And even if they did acquiesce and put down a set of rules about FLT, galaxy vs. system etc. I expect they'd hapily break them in a second if they had a story idea that went against them.

----------
I have no faith but it's all that I want
to be loved and believe
in my soul.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:08 PM

Quote:
To me, this is pretty definitive. If the unused quote mentioned above is genuine, the fact that the producers bothered to change the opening to be much more specific is just about the final nail in the coffin of the "many system" theory.

Yes, I know that the later show opening (narrated by Mal) talks about "a whole galaxy of earths". While this evidence supports the many systems theory, it is certainly a line that could be hyperbole or exaggeration, while the Book line seems to me to be very specific.

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.

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.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:33 PM

Look--

We KNOW for a fact, they're NOT on Earth, due to the numerous "Earth-That_Was" references, and such.

So, they're not here. They're also not on ANY of the other planets in the Solar system, because they are either complettely 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.

Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the nearest star to us is 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...

So, FTL seems to me that it MUCT exist in the 'verse, or at least DID at some point during the colonization. Also, if we have the tech needed to terraform on such a huge level (changing atmosphere, AND gravity, of a planet), it seems we MUCT have a corresponding transport tech to match it.

But again, I might not know what the hell I'm talking about...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

DIEGO

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:55 PM

>Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which >means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the >nearest star to us is 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...

I prefer the no-FTL idea if only for the aesthetic appeal of an alternative to warp/wormhole/hyperspace plot devices, but your point is a good one. In 500 years, it would be hard to get to a new world and to have had time to build up a system-spanning civilization of terraformed worlds (leaving aside the weirdness of a system so full of easily terraformed terrestrial bodies).

But here is a possible no-FTL rebuttal:

But then again, we don't know how long they've been settled on the new frontier. Early periods in Alliance history (the age of the Companion tea ceremony etc) could have occurred before or after the departure from Earth-that-was.

And while I'm throwing stuff on the table, I have an idea about some of the references.
1) We already use "galaxy" as an expression for impossibly large things in size, distance, or quantity, so it makes more sense that this would be hyperbole than a reference to a "new system".
2) I believe Mal refers to the fact that the meek have inherited not a one of the vast number of earths spinning (I don't recall the exact number. . .>70?). This has largely been used in defense of the many systems hypothesis, since it seems ridiculous for that many worlds to exist in a single solar system. But there's no reason to believe that those worlds are within reach of our heroes. It seems likely that the exodus from Earth-that-was was a diaspora in many directions. Many, many sublight ships could have gone to cololnize promising systems. And since you can communicate at light-speed, it seems likely that they could have received progress reports from the other settled systems even if the reports are 5, 20, or even 50 years out of date.

Diego

DIEGO

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:58 PM

Oh yeah,

But the main point I forgot to mention is that those who've suggested there simply isn't enough data to reject one hypothesis or the other are probably right.

Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait 500 years for the answer! ;)

GUNRUNNER

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:59 PM

Well Hat humanity may have used very large high sub-light ships to travel to other worlds. So at say .90c it’s about 5 or 6 years travel to the Centauri system, which wouldn't be that bad aboard a generational ship. Maybe it took a generation or two or three to find a suitable system and send for the other generational ships to colonize the system.

Think of it as a futuristic wagon train from the 1800's, which is kind of keeping with the Firefly view of the 'verse.

Since we have no reference to when teraforming of worlds began and that in Shindig the slaver states that they are still terforming worlds its possible that the worlds of firefly have only been inhabited for a few hundred years.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

STEVE580

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Look--

We KNOW for a fact, they're NOT on Earth, due to the numerous "Earth-That_Was" references, and such.

So, they're not here. They're also not on ANY of the other planets in the Solar system, because they are either complettely 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.

Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the nearest star to us is 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...

So, FTL seems to me that it MUCT exist in the 'verse, or at least DID at some point during the colonization. Also, if we have the tech needed to terraform on such a huge level (changing atmosphere, AND gravity, of a planet), it seems we MUCT have a corresponding transport tech to match it.

But again, I might not know what the hell I'm talking about...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

But you can't have "corresponding technology" if the technology you're talking about is impossible. Anyways, perhaps they found a wormhole or something that took them to this new system.

How would there be 'inner' and 'outer' planets if there is more than one system involved? NAh, seems more likely that it's one system of ten or so planets, each with ten or so moons. I just can't believe that Serenity can exceede the speed of light...

Besides, remember in the pilot episode, when she passed the Reaver ship? They were only doing 5-10 mph. So maybe it's just one planet, with a couple dozen moons, and spaceships just move reeaaallly slow.
-Steve

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:19 PM

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:24 PM

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.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:51 PM

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

GUNRUNNER

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:52 PM

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

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:06 PM

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

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:17 PM

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

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:24 PM

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

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:24 PM

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

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:24 PM

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

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:26 PM

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

HANS

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
(stuff cut)
Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the nearest star to us is 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...

So, FTL seems to me that it MUCT exist in the 'verse, or at least DID at some point during the colonization. Also, if we have the tech needed to terraform on such a huge level (changing atmosphere, AND gravity, of a planet), it seems we MUCT have a corresponding transport tech to match it.

--Jefé The Hat

Come on now, use your imagination. If a hypothetical star is 15 light years away, and they develop a non-FTL drive that can go up to (say) 1/2 the speed of light, they can get there in 30 years. It's not hard to imagine some catastrophe on Earth (environmental degradation or whatever) causing a slow exodus to a new, more viable system over the course of decades or even centuries, using massive colony ships. Remember, the show takes place in the 26th century after all.

I admit that a planet with 70+ habitable or terraformable worlds is unlikely, maybe highly improbable, but not automatically impossible. There are many respected people who feel the same way about FTL.

Hans

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:31 PM

Even if AC DOES have planets, and planets exactly like earth, there's still the "Getting there" part. The human body can't withstand too much G-force, so really really fast travel in normal space will take decades if not centuries if not MILLENIA to reach the nearest star system.

If it's Jupiter, there's the small problem of the sun being WAAAAAYY too far away to sustain the planet. Even given terraforming, there's still the fact that the sun is still a zillion miles away-- have you seen the Rover pictures of what the sun looks like from Mars??

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:42 PM

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.

Sorry but this 90c is wrong, it's 0.9c. I know I'm being nit picky, but, there's just a world of difference there.

When you go at a speed (0.9c) there is no acceleration. Acceleration only happens when you are speeding up or slowing down. We also know that they have gravity drives on these ships, so, they could implement these drives in a way to counteract the effects of acceleration. Thereby being able to get acceleration that would normally be impossible due to the fragile nature of humans.

Again, this is all speculation.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:46 PM

Well, of course you're all just wrong.

I must confess though, many of my assumptions about the Firefly universe are based on my deep suspicion that Joss, at one time or another, played the seminal science fiction roleplaying game 'Traveller'. A great many parallels exist between that game setting and the tone and texture of Firefly. Not to mention Wash's comment at the beginning of "Serenity" - "Hang on, Travellers!" (A shout-out to old school gamers?)

Granted, that's pretty slim evidence, but the show has such a tremendous roleplaying sensibility to it in other respects that it makes me wonder.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:47 PM

yeah, like I said.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Remember that they were all told to hold onto something first?

Also, normal speeds are not to be compared with fractions of light...

True, but, it was and still is a good point.

To not be knocked around by that amount of force whether you were holding onto something or not is quite extraordinary. I would think that an "inertial dampener" type thing of some sort would have to be in play here.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Even if AC DOES have planets, and planets exactly like earth, there's still the "Getting there" part. The human body can't withstand too much G-force, so really really fast travel in normal space will take decades if not centuries if not MILLENIA to reach the nearest star system.

If it's Jupiter, there's the small problem of the sun being WAAAAAYY too far away to sustain the planet. Even given terraforming, there's still the fact that the sun is still a zillion miles away-- have you seen the Rover pictures of what the sun looks like from Mars??

You are still putting limitations on unknown technology/technologies. You really shouldn't do that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Remember that they were all told to hold onto something first?

Also, normal speeds are not to be compared with fractions of light...
True, but, it was and still is a good point.

To not be knocked around by that amount of force whether you were holding onto something or not is quite extraordinary. I would think that an "inertial dampener" type thing of some sort would have to be in play here.

The kind of velocities a vehicle would experience on reentry would be plenty large enough that “holding on” to something would be pointless during a maneuver in which the vehicle was completely turned about. In fact, I doubt any current construction could even withstand those kinds of forces. The vehicle would likely be torn to pieces and burn up, certainly no one would survive, even if it didn't. They would be greasy stains on the wall.

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
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.

Sorry but this 90c is wrong, it's 0.9c. I know I'm being nit picky, but, there's just a world of difference there.

When you go at a speed (0.9c) there is no acceleration. Acceleration only happens when you are speeding up or slowing down. We also know that they have gravity drives on these ships, so, they could implement these drives in a way to counteract the effects of acceleration. Thereby being able to get acceleration that would normally be impossible due to the fragile nature of humans.

Again, this is all speculation.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

.... isn't that exactly what I said?

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

YORKY

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:38 PM

I reckon Serenity can go faster than light, but sometimes it has to slow down, otherwise the bloke in the spacesuit with the steadycam isn't going to capture anything. I'll be honest, I'm no quantum physicist, but that's my theory.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The kind of velocities a vehicle would experience on reentry would be plenty large enough that “holding on” to something would be pointless during a maneuver in which the vehicle was completely turned about.

Agreed

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In fact, I doubt any current construction could even withstand those kinds of forces. The vehicle would likely be torn to pieces and burn up, certainly no one would survive, even if it didn't. They would be greasy stains on the wall.

Do you mean the crazy Ivan on re-entry? If so, agreed.

But, they didn't do the crazy Ivan on re-entry. They did it while taking off and only did the full burn after they did that maneuver.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
.... isn't that exactly what I said?

What I caught is that you stated that we must have a crazy acceleration to get to relativistic speeds and that that acceleration can't be curved in some way.

Although it is true that we must have that acceleration (to get to any relativistic speeds within a "small" amount of time) there is no absolute that we must "feel" that acceleration (ie inertial dampeners). I reference my prior conjecture that states the possibility of Serenity's grav drive to reduce the effects of acceleration on the crew.

I think we were both too terse. My wife tells me I do that a lot

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FORRESTWOLF

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:21 PM

Ah...a fellow "Joss is an ex-Traveller player" theorist :)

Joss has done enough D&D references over the years that I really DO wonder about Traveller. Makes me feel confident about using Traveller rules for my Firefly game.

I'm not sure if it being Traveller-inspired really decides the FTL issue one way or the other, though - Joss could have just dropped Jump drive (set the show in TL what - 8 or so?). Traveller is full of nice 1-6 G acceleration, which would match fairly well with interplanetary travel times in Firefly.

Someone's got to ask Joss about Traveller somehow someday...let me know if you ever hear anything!

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:23 PM

I'd either agree or disagree with you and your wife, if I knew what the word "terse" means...

I thought you were talking about my response to someone's note about 90c, thinking that I thought it meant 0.9c, or that I was confused (which happens a lot, my hat's too tight)... I think I kinda lost my train of thought (happens, too--see note about tightness of hat)...

Um... so, what we're saying is, they might be able to go really really super duper fast, but not get squashed to little itty bitty smudges of jeely-like protoplasm, due to an inertial damping doohickey?

I see that as possible... but, I'm not sure where you stand in the "They Have" or "They Have Not" FTL issue... umm... do you say yes or no?

If yes, then I think we're more or less on the same page, and are probably arguing each other's point without realizing (that happens, too, but not because of the hat tightness, mainly because my fingers type faster than the brain thinks).

If no, then I'm REALLY confuzzled, because I lost my point somewhere...

Either way, if sublight, we're talking mucho years to the next place...

... ummm...

.... ....

... if anyone happens to see a medium-sized mind, only slightly used, wearing a bowler hat and singing 80s songs, please forward it to me...

... oh waiter, clue please...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayn

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
I'd either agree or disagree with you and your wife, if I knew what the word "terse" means...

Brief and to the point; effectively concise

So, "too terse" would cloud what you are trying to say as you weren't stating all the necessary data for others to understand. I do it all the time, again according to the wife

I think I make perfect sense

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Um... so, what we're saying is, they might be able to go really really super duper fast, but not get squashed to little itty bitty smudges of jeely-like protoplasm, due to an inertial damping doohickey?

Basically, yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
I see that as possible... but, I'm not sure where you stand in the "They Have" or "They Have Not" FTL issue... umm... do you say yes or no?

I haven't really seen a whole lot of evidence for either type of drive. But, since I have seen a some evidence for the one system theory and I tend in that direction, I'd be inclined to move toward the no FTL drive.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
If yes, then I think we're more or less on the same page, and are probably arguing each other's point without realizing (that happens, too, but not because of the hat tightness, mainly because my fingers type faster than the brain thinks).

I had a friend a while back that would argue a point and then we would end up arguing the same point which would really piss me off. Not because we were arguing the same point. But, because he knew we were and continued to argue anyway. It was quite irritating.

For the record I'm not saying you are doing what he did. Just a story is all.

And my finger type to fast as well. Makes for some interesting first drafts of posts sometimes

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Either way, if sublight, we're talking mucho years to the next place...

Only if that next place is another star system. Which as said by many people, we can only speculate until we get more info.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

XARR

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Prof.: These are the dark matter engines I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.
Cubert: That's impossible! You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Prof.: Of course not! That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208!

just gotta say, that rocks! hahahaah

BADGERSHAT

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:21 PM

... ow....

... my head hurts...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

FARWALL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Even if AC DOES have planets, and planets exactly like earth

The planets in Firefly aren't(well wheren't originally) necessarily like Earth at all, they where Teraformed as is stated in the show a couple of times. Seeing as we're given no information on the Teraforming tech (just as we're given no info on any of the other tech), who's to say what the planets where like.

----------
I have no faith but it's all that I want
to be loved and believe
in my soul.

NRKANGEL

Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:48 AM

Ok... I really didn't want to participate in this, but I...can't stop....typing...

Let's see...if the reference to 70 earths is accurate, then there is no possible way that we're dealing with one system.

The Life Zone in any given solar system (capable of supporting water in liquid form) is very narrow. It would be physically impossible to support more than a few planets in this area of space, much less 70.

OK...if we're dealing with multiple systems, how do we go from planet to planet?

Remember, it took man over 2000 years to come up with powered flight (counting BC years), but after that it only took 53 years to go from Kitty Hawk to hitting golf balls on the moon.

With the technology we have now, the gravity dampeners on the show are impossible. The fusion reactor they have is impossible. The ability to keep someone in revivable cryogenic stasis for long periods is impossible. (Let's not even discuss the idea of Jayne ever being mistaken for a heroic figure...that's just too silly for words...still, it happened.)

That's why I think they must have FTL. Of course, they may have something that allows them to warp the curvature of space so that they can travel from point to point faster than light can. (Draw a dot at either end of a piece of paper. Draw a straight line from dot to dot. That's the shortest distance between the two points as we understand our universe. Now, fold the paper in half. The dots are closer. Now if you draw a straight line between the two of them, you would be able to do so significantly faster without speeding up.) On the show they can create gravity, so warping space should be possible...

The only other argument I could use is that it's fiction and anything is possible in fiction.

How is it that we're still talking about this?

WYDRAZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:22 AM

I've held my tongue long enough. Of course they have FTL. They have control of gravity (i.e. gravity drives).

FTL is considered impossible because as a mass (the ship) moves closer to the speed of light, the energy required becomes an impossible amount for the ship to sustain. However, this rule can be broken if the ship's mass is reduced to zero. Given their control of gravity (including terraforming small moons), it is a small step to say that they are able to cancel out the ship's mass with the gravity drive. Hence, very little power is required for them to travel faster than light.

It always amazes me how sci-fi fans continue to dismiss something we are not capable of doing today, despite the fact that sci-fi stories usually occur in a future where technology is beyond what we have today.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The kind of velocities a vehicle would experience on reentry would be plenty large enough that “holding on” to something would be pointless during a maneuver in which the vehicle was completely turned about.

Agreed

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In fact, I doubt any current construction could even withstand those kinds of forces. The vehicle would likely be torn to pieces and burn up, certainly no one would survive, even if it didn't. They would be greasy stains on the wall.

Do you mean the crazy Ivan on re-entry? If so, agreed.

But, they didn't do the crazy Ivan on re-entry. They did it while taking off and only did the full burn after they did that maneuver.

Was it not done on reentry? I thought they entered the atmosphere before doing that, but I guess they were taking off.

I need to rewatch my Firefly episodes, I think I'm rusty.

GUNHAND

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:10 AM

The Crazy Ivan was in the atmosphere.

As far as the FTL thing, I change my opinion everytime I watch the show but for the past while I'm thinking they do have it. They can manipulate gravity, no zero-gee on the ship normally, and that is one thing that would allow FTL.

I chuckled the first time they started the whole,"Can you do an Ivan" thing because I knew they were gonna call it a Crazy Ivan. Which is pretty shiny even though what Serenity does barely resembles a real one. If the show went any further I was interested in seeing if they'd try any other Russian naval/air maneuvers with the ship. A Kobra would be possible with Serenity and would be interesting to see.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

BADGERSHAT

Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:
If the show went any further I was interested in seeing if they'd try any other Russian naval/air maneuvers with the ship. A Kobra would be possible with Serenity and would be interesting to see.

What's a Kobra?

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

GUNHAND

Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:
If the show went any further I was interested in seeing if they'd try any other Russian naval/air maneuvers with the ship. A Kobra would be possible with Serenity and would be interesting to see.

What's a Kobra?

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

A Kobra is a move that can only be pulled off in a Russian MiG-29 fighter, although I heard rumors that it was done once with a SU-27 but I don't really believe it.

Wish I had a drawing here...but I'll give it a shot.

Basically you start straight and level, then the pilot noses down a little, say 5 degrees to get a little extra airspeed, then pulls up into a straight ballistic climb, so the nose is pointing directly up. This bleeds off airspeed pretty quickly, the pilot keeps back pressure on the stick so the plane's nose actually points slightly backwards in the direction he was coming from so it winds up the plane is at an angle.

Cheesy attempt at a graph coming up here, but once the pilot is in a Kobra:

Plane lookes like \ in relation to the ground with the nose up while still travelling ---> in the original direction he was flying. Basically the tail is leading the way with the nose pointed slightly in "reverse" and up.

How long he can hold it is pretty much how big his cajones are, a really good pilot can even do it while still travelling in the same direction, nose pointed back a bit and at a low enough speed that he decends a bit while keeping forward motion.

What's the use of such a trick? Well it looks impressive as hell at airshows and the Mikoyan corporation includes that maneuver in it's sales videos so countries like India are impressed enough to buy some. But actually it's a pretty clever combat move, either with guns or more likely with an infared AAM that is hooked up to a helmet sight, he can shoot off center of the plane with that setup and with that move can snapshot a missile at a plane chasing him.

Bad pilots wind up stalling and spinning and even good ones can if they hold it too long, there's only so long you can ride the edge of physics. The reason the MiG-29 is the only plane that can do it is because it has the right balance between thrust, weight and doesn't have a fly by wire system. An F-16 has the right thrust to weight ratio too but the fly by wire system would prevent the plane from entering that radical an angle of attack.

Why would Serenity pull one? Well that would be one way to get an off angle away from a persuer and then kick in a full burn to escape. Seems to me that spaceships depend on angle in the 'Verse to a pretty realistic extent, open an angle wide enough and fast enough and you can get away from a persuer.

When Zoid checks in he can go over my aerodynamic facts that I'm probably a fair bit hazy on.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

BADGERSHAT

Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:07 PM

You know, for a description relying purely on text and a slash mark, you gave me a pretty detailed picture... kudos, Gunny.

I'm wondering what Zoid does, that he knows so much about aerodynamics and the like... hmmm... perhaps we have our own Book counterpart here...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

GUNHAND

Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:12 PM

Gracias Jefé, I do try.

Zoid was a Zoomie so he has probably forgotten more about planes than I ever have known.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:00 PM

Out of curiosity, how does one go into a ballistic climb in powered flight?

As far as Serenity, it has swiveling turbine engines, which might in theory allow it to do a great many interesting things, assuming it would remain intact at high velocities. I am somewhat curious about whether the cinematic depiction of Serenity in endoatmospheric flight is consistent with current observations. I’ve seen several things that looked encouraging. The atmospheric heating and wake do to reentry in one episode I thought was a wonderful effect.

GUNHAND

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:12 PM

Ballistic climb is pretty much a misnomer, but gets the point across. Sounds a little better than fly straight up I guess, the Soviets used to use it for whatever their nefarious reasons were. As a Kobra is a Russian combat move it seemed appropriate.

Crazy Ivans.

That's the term I know from reading their manuals, like I said my aerodynamics knowledge is pretty shallow and specific to capabilities and not how the physics of it all works except in a general way.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

BADGERSHAT

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:18 PM

Wasn't the Crazy Ivan a submarine move?
They did it in "Hunt for Red October" as I recall.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

GUNHAND

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Wasn't the Crazy Ivan a submarine move?
They did it in "Hunt for Red October" as I recall.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)

Soviet sonar technology was never as advanced as ours so they used the sudden turns in circles to allow their sonar to sweep all the way around the sub. American attack sub captains hate this maneuver because of the chance of a collision especially if the Russian sub does a depth change while an American or British one is "underhulling" the Russian. Basically that's when a US or British sub actually goes right under a Russian one to make recordings of all the machine noise.

Remember in Hunt For Red October when the skipper asked if they "knew" him? That's from underhulling, all the Soviet submarines ever floated have been underhulled at some point to record all their machinery sounds, which gives a thumbprint of sorts. But there always was a first time for a new boat so that's when they really, really hated the Crazy Ivan, if they were doing the premiere recording of a new Russian boat.

US subs don't generally do Crazy Ivans since our towed array sonar allows the subs to hear into the baffles, since it's towed it's behind the prop, covers the rear without any ambient machine noise from the US boat to interfere with passive sonar detection of anything back there.

Soviet towed array sonar was...well to be blunt go-se and so they had to generally rely on their main sonar at the front of the boat. Not many Sovier/Russian subs were ever operationally equipped with the stuff last I knew such things and seeing the state of the Russian Navy right now I doubt the situation has gotten better and probably is a lot worse.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

BADGERSHAT

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:

Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)

... You know what Jack Burton always says at a time like this...

Who?

Jack Burton? Me???

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

GUNHAND

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:

Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)

... You know what Jack Burton always says at a time like this...

Who?

Jack Burton? Me???

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

You were not put on this Earth to "get it" Mr. Hat!

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

BADGERSHAT

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:54 PM

...... huh?

But I DID get it... didn't I?

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

TEDC

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Is Serenity traveling fater than light, and if so, how?

It is apparent that Serenity travels between solar systems in times ranging from hours to weeks. The ship is therefore obviously capable of travelling faster than light. FTL travel is a science fiction staple that I wouldn't expect to be missed in this show.

Quote:
Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein (and there's a lot of reasons to do just that).

However, there's many that disagree, not so much with the faster than light, but with the speed of light itself--they think that the speed of light is NOT a constant velocity, it shifts in many cases due to various factors.

People who believe otherwise are on the lunatic fringe of the scientific community.

Quote:
Is faster than light speed possible in normal space? Not bloody likely, but then again, you never know. Some say, the Conservation of Energy prevents it, some say it's just another speed. We in our lifetimes will likely not know the truth.

Time and mass dilation are the primarily stumbling blocks. Plus, an object would have to annihilate more than its one mass to achieve that kind of kinetic energy.

Quote:
But, I don't think any of us can give more than an opinion on this matter, regardless of our reading habits. Theoretical physicists create.... wait for it... THEORIES. Theories are NOT facts, they are ideas on something, and ideas on how to maybe prove or disprove those somethings. Nothing more, nothing less.

Theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts. It is a fact that objects with mass are attracted toward each other; the Theory of Gravity is an explanation for this observed phenomenon.

Quote:
The most brilliant minds in the world are in disagreement about this issue. There's the hypserstring idea, the quantum tunnelling idea, hyperspace, warp space, etc etc etc.

More fringe science. Many of these are hypotheses about phenomena that a mathematically possible under established scientific laws but have never been observed.

Quote:
Personally, I think hyperspace is the true answer--a plane of existence in which everything is accelerated, meaning that even if we travel a fraction of lightspeed, that speed is exponentially faster than it would be in normal space. But, I don't know from theoretical physics and such.

There is no scientific basis for your belief. Hyperspace is an entirely fictional concept.

Quote:
Anyway, the long-since-buried point is, we shouldn't quibble over FTL or not FTL possibilities, because we simply don't know.

Firefly generally uses the same "black box" concept for technology that Star Wars employs. The technology exists; it's underlying principles are unexplained (because the technology exists to serve the story, and its nuts and bolts are irrelevant to the story).

Quote:
Oh, and just for the record, there IS sound in space, just WAAAAAYY below human hearing (it's recordable with highly sensitive instruments, because, after all, there IS air in space, it's just EXTREMELY thin--if space were a TRUE vacuum, everything within it would collapse, and we wouldn't be here to have this stimulating discussion).

There is no significant amount of sound propagation in space. Space is not a "pure" vacuum, but it's certainly not dense enough to sound to propagate. Even if it were a "true" vacuum, everything in it wouldn't "collapse".

"Burn the land and boil the sea, still can't keep the sky from me."

GUNRUNNER

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:30 PM

Hi Gunhand I thought I add a "little" bit to your statements about the Kobra and the Crazy Ivan.

The Russian SU-33 and SU-35 can perform the Kobra and Bell maneuvers. The SU-33 is the Naval version of the SU-27 Flanker, and the SU-35 is the new thrust vectoring air force version of the SU-33. They can accomplish this maneuver with the aid of "Canards" or little wing like appendages located just aft of the cockpit.

BTW the Bell maneuver is just like the Kobra except they do not keep the nose in the air instead the do a 360-degree roll along the axes that runs wing tip to wing tip.

Now on to the topic of the Crazy Ivan many modern Russian submarines are capable of carrying Towed Arrays. The classes that do are, Victor III, Akula 1, 1-Improved and 2, Delta III and IV, Typhoon, Sierra I and II, Oscar I and II, Lada/Amur (the new Kilo) and the Two next gen submarine classes that are still being built (Severvnisk and Bory?). These classes make up nearly the entire operational force of the Russian navy. However you are correct in saying that hard financial times have no doubt prevented the constant deployment of such systems aboard all active Russian subs.

The Towed Array is more sensitive to lower frequency sound that is used to detect submarines and distance surface ships than the spherical and conformal arrays located in the bow and along the sides thus making them a more powerful tool for detection even aboard older subs. While these systems are not up to the standards of the US and UK their major fault is the weakness of the TA cable on the older boats. If you look at the designs of the Victor III and Akulas you will see a large pod on her rudder, this pod houses the TA because its cable is made up of a brittle rubber like material that can not be brought in to the hull or ballast tanks like on US subs, newer boats have been given a more western like TA cable and their TA Pods are quite smaller. (I wonder if they got the design of a better TA towing cable from the time that Victor III was tangled up in one from a US Destroyer)

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
My Other Site:
http://www.geocities.com/billds9/

BADGERSHAT

Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TedC:
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Is Serenity traveling fater than light, and if so, how?

It is apparent that Serenity travels between solar systems in times ranging from hours to weeks. The ship is therefore obviously capable of travelling faster than light. FTL travel is a science fiction staple that I wouldn't expect to be missed in this show.

Quote:
Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein (and there's a lot of reasons to do just that).

However, there's many that disagree, not so much with the faster than light, but with the speed of light itself--they think that the speed of light is NOT a constant velocity, it shifts in many cases due to various factors.

People who believe otherwise are on the lunatic fringe of the scientific community.
...

Quote:
But, I don't think any of us can give more than an opinion on this matter, regardless of our reading habits. Theoretical physicists create.... wait for it... THEORIES. Theories are NOT facts, they are ideas on something, and ideas on how to maybe prove or disprove those somethings. Nothing more, nothing less.

Theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts. It is a fact that objects with mass are attracted toward each other; the Theory of Gravity is an explanation for this observed phenomenon.

Quote:
The most brilliant minds in the world are in disagreement about this issue. There's the hypserstring idea, the quantum tunnelling idea, hyperspace, warp space, etc etc etc.

More fringe science. Many of these are hypotheses about phenomena that a mathematically possible under established scientific laws but have never been observed.

Okay, dude, I hear ya.
BUT--

Keep in mind, the idea of a round earth was "fringe science" at one time, as was the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, the idea of flight, the idea of reaching the mind... etc etc etc. Anything NEW is considered "Fringe Science" until it happens.

ALSO--Theories are NOT neccessarily "explanations of the facts"--actually, I think a theory CANNOT be an explanation of the facts, because if they're facts, they don't need theorizing. Granted, if you look at dictionary.com's definition, it DOES say "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts..." BUT, it also says "abstract reasoning; speculation" AND "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; conjecture"

So, theories are not strictly used to explain facts, they're used to create an environment in which to discover facts.

ALSO AGAIN--There's only ONE "Solar System"--OUR star system (Named the "Solar" system, because our sun is named "Sol")

... wow, do I sound smarmy as hell or what?

Sorry to sound this way, but as SigmaNunki can tell you, I often type at different speeds than my mind processes...

Anyway... um... what was the question... ?

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Was it not done on reentry? I thought they entered the atmosphere before doing that, but I guess they were taking off. I need to rewatch my Firefly episodes, I think I'm rusty.

After all the fighting was done on that little moon Jayne *ran* down the hill (from his sniping position) and said something like "It's the gorram Reavers, they followed us." Then we enter a stimulating spaceship chase scene in atmo where that maneuver was done, then full burn. And our crew went merrily on it's way

God I'm a Firefly geek

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

TRACER

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:29 PM

thing is if you travel at the speed of light, don't you see where you going, while being there and i'm all confused

Wash is a great pilot,

so it seems plausable that serenity dosn't travel faster then light, just really really quick...besides you'd need a lot of energy to travel at the speed of light considering a vessel of serenity's size its safe to say no.

think we've been listening too much to Data and Mr Laforge.

*
This post's spelling was brought to you today by pap-gram.org
*

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Keep in mind, the idea of a round earth was "fringe science" at one time, as was the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, the idea of flight, the idea of reaching the mind... etc etc etc. Anything NEW is considered "Fringe Science" until it happens.

Very true.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
ALSO--Theories are NOT neccessarily "explanations of the facts"--actually, I think a theory CANNOT be an explanation of the facts, because if they're facts, they don't need theorizing. Granted, if you look at dictionary.com's definition, it DOES say "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts..." BUT, it also says "abstract reasoning; speculation" AND "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; conjecture"

So, theories are not strictly used to explain facts, they're used to create an environment in which to discover facts.

I would have to side with that last two there and/or change the word "facts" to "observations" in that first one.

My personal view is that theories don't really have much to do with facts, those I call statements. Theories are used to try to ex pain something with the limited amount of observables that we have and mostly to try to predict what we will see next to get a deeper understanding of what is going on. Of course these will all have limitations which will then create a new more mature theory... and the cycle continues.

These things are much more clear in Math. Theorems, conjectures, lemmas, etc all have clear cut definitions. Maybe that's why I lean to the math more than the physics.

A prof just finished giving a presentation of a proof.

Prof: "And we are done."
Audience Member: "That's wrong! And I have a counter example to show that it is wrong!"
Prof: "I don't care, I have a proof!"

Just one of those math jokes

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Sorry to sound this way, but as SigmaNunki can tell you, I often type at different speeds than my mind processes...

tee hee

We both did that. tee hee

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SAMURAIX47

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:41 PM

Quote:
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 have to correct you on a point. If you do the math you'll find that it would take about 11 months for an object to reach the velocity of light (approx 3x10^8 m/s) at an acceleration rate of 1G or 9.8 meters/sec^2. Heinlein uses this in "Time for the Stars" to great affect. As the ship reaches that velocity time dilation slows down for those riding onboard. If they were going to Alpha Cent. 4.2 lt-yrs away it would take about 5-6 yrs to get there. For the passengers it would seem shorter, 2 years.

Barnard star is the next closest star at 6 lt-yrs and has long been suspected of having a Jupiter size planet. But I think even today that is still being debated.

check out this link
http://exoplanets.org/exoplanets_pub.html
It seems most planets discovered are larger than Jupiter... and if a star has several gas giants, it could concievably have many moons of varying sizes including Earth-size moons that could be terraformed.

Jaymes

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tracer:
so it seems plausable that serenity dosn't travel faster then light, just really really quick...besides you'd need a lot of energy to travel at the speed of light considering a vessel of serenity's size its safe to say no.

Well, you can't go at the speed of light. Also, if you take that equation and take the limit of the velocity as it approaches the speed of light you get an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible. So, basically you can never actually achieve the speed of light, even theoretically.

Plus, after a certain speed the relativistic effects would make it impossible to steer. I believe in Star Trek full impulse was supposed to be 0.25c because of this.

If there was FTL then (I'd hazard to say) it'd have to be by some sort of spacial manipulation. ie make the distance between the two point shorter somehow.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

MCFLY

Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:19 PM

I love topics like this. I'm such a geek.

Anyhow, has anyone considered the possibility that FTL travel exists in the firefly universe but Serenity is not FTL capable?

It makes sense given the 'there's all sorts of cool technology out there, but few people can afford it' mentality of the show. In a situation where there are a few colonized systems with many planets, a sublight vessel would still be able to find work on a number of different planets without using FTL. Serenity does seem to stick around pretty close to Persephone throughout the regrettably limited series.

Hack the planet!

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by McFly:
Anyhow, has anyone considered the possibility that FTL travel exists in the firefly universe but Serenity is not FTL capable?

Shiny, never even thought of that

Quote:
Originally posted by McFly:
It makes sense given the 'there's all sorts of cool technology out there, but few people can afford it' mentality of the show. In a situation where there are a few colonized systems with many planets, a sublight vessel would still be able to find work on a number of different planets without using FTL. Serenity does seem to stick around pretty close to Persephone throughout the regrettably limited series.

That would be a great reason of why Serenity stays in the "neighborhood". Zoey did state once that Persephone was like a second home.

Nice one

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

RELFEXIVE

Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:28 PM

The colonists might have had some means of TFL travel to get 'there' but have since lost the ability to use it somehow. Could explain the 'many worlds in one system that is far away' theory.

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."

SAMURAIX47

Friday, May 14, 2004 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
We all seem to be forgetting, Persephone is here in the Solar system (is it one of the moons of Pluto or something? Can't recall, but it orbits our sun).

Here's a link that lists all the moons in our solar system...
http://www.planetary.org/learn/solarsystem/moons.html#names

here is a link to Minor Planet (asteroids) names.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPNames.html

Persephone is an asteroid that was discovered in 1895 by astronomer Max Wolf.

Jaymes

SKYDANCE

Friday, May 14, 2004 7:53 PM

"Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein ..."

Actually, I've got a degree in Physics, and that's not what the theory says. It says that you can't travel faster than the speed of light if you have mass.

However, everyone who's ever read a copy of Popular Science knows that Tachyons move faster than the speed of light.

A little more esoteric is the knowledge that we have experiments involving the spin of subatomic particles that show information can move instantaneously between two points. Not "very fast" but "instantaneously". No time. Infinite speed.

So, there's a lot of room for something to be discovered that gets past the whole "speed of light" issue by sidestepping the problem. We'll just have to figure out what it is. Meanwhile ...

As much as we want it to be "real," Firefly is a story. It's not real. Ships travel from story to story, not star to star. Try to analyze it too much, and you miss the point. It's about People, not physics.

GUNHAND

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:01 PM

Ships in the 'Verse have artifical gravity, which is something that we sci-fi fans have pretty much taken for granted since...well forever. The reason for this (pseudoscientific gobbledegook aside) is that it's way too expensive to film zero g TV shows. Movies, sometimes but for something that happens every week, not gonna happen.

So we accept artificial gravity without batting an eyelash because it's so ingrained into our consciousness yet debate FTL travel like there's no tommorow.

But the simple fact is artificial gravity is as improbable/fringe/theoretical as FTL travel. But since most movies are filmed here on earth we take the artificial gravity for granted.

Now look at what Skydance wrote again about the speed of light and mass. If you can control gravity/mass to the extent your ship has zero mass then...well then you can have FTL fellas.

And I also agree that if you can't break the "light barrier" the way we did the sound barrier, because they're very different things, then you just have to figure a way around it.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:35 PM

I have heard of no experiments that have transmitted information faster then light. That is somewhat of a popular misinterpretation. What the experiments that you mention demonstrates is something called entanglement. And the reason it does not send information faster then light is because the measurements are random. You can know the spin of one particle if you measure the spin of the other, because spin is quantized and angular mommentum is conserved. But the results are always random.