SerenityMovie.net

Companion Kate · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2014 Location: UK

Running a little late, but will definitely be out today.
_________________

Companion Kate · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2014 Location: UK

Okay, it's up.
_________________

SignalCarrier · Joined: 26 Aug 2005 Posts: 11

hey if the show notes take a few days to put up, can you link to the Lego Man's (chris i think) website, i would love to take a look see at teh site you guys discirbed

Companion Kate · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2014 Location: UK

CHRi5 · Guest

Hey guys - been listening since day 1 - its all great of course - go the guerilla marketing for our BDM.

I was just thinking though, with all this voting going on in the podcast directories etc and exposure of this podcast as a phenomena of its own (one that drives awareness of the show/movie) i was thinking that it was worthwhile having an intro to firefly at the top of each show (or just the new shows). Because I can imagine people who listen just because its a highly rated show will have no idea what firefly/serenity is about and why we (you) are ranting about it Smile

Perhaps part of the ron glass intro that was in front of Train Job mixed in with a small explanation of the movie and how this podcast fits into the whole thing?

kbachelder · Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Introduction for non-fans

kbachelder · Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:52 am Post subject:

Vera123 · Guest

I really didn't like this segment...

While the first part was incredible, and really made me think, this portion seems too much like nitpicking, and had the feel that the author was simply tacking on items to fill the time.

Was disappointed, but will keep on flying.

Vera

cinemafreak · Joined: 02 Aug 2005 Posts: 8 Location: North Carolina

I agree about the nitpickiness, but then again that's what the Signal is for. Us to get uber-geeky about the Firefly 'Verse. The difference is if we were arguing over any of these points.

And about uber-geeky nitpicking, a Parsec is a measure of distance. The whole gimmick of the Kessel run is the minimum distance you can travel through it, since it's filled with asteroids and a giant Maw (collection of black holes), which could suck you in. So in fact one could make the kessel run in 3 parsecs, from a certain point of view.
_________________

Upcoming Audio Drama Series

Shannafey · Guest

On the podcast you had said that Empire Magazine's Sept. issue had a Firefly DVD. I rushed out to Barnes and Noble, but there's no DVD in the September issue and the website shows a King Kong spectacular for October. Can you verify this info?

ElmoFromOK · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 2

I am the guy who came up to you in the podcast panel at DragonCon and got a photo taken. I will post it as soon as I can get it off my laptop. Having a cord issue at the moment Wink

_________________
aka Elmo
from the Elmocast
http://www.elmocast.com

Asty · Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Posts: 126 Location: Oregon

Ah yes...I remember you. Smile

That will be awesome Smile

_________________
Listen to "The Signal"
http://www.serenityfirefly.com

Guest

The nitpicking didn't bother me too much - to me, it means the author's just showing he really loves the show. Also I agree the first part was really well done - carefully reasoned, thought provoking, and entertaining. But in this second segment the author's usual careful reasoning took a wild left turn at the end when he says "mind-reading isn't science" and argues it's even more outlandish than artificial gravity, and then brings in the Amazing Randi as the main reason!
<BEGIN RANT>
This is a poor analysis for reasons almost too numerous to mention, so I'll mention just a couple. First, to say something "isn't science" is very problematic because it's actually very difficult to precisely and accurately define what science is; I bet that for every definition you can come up with I can come up with a counterexample that either clearly is science but is left out of the definition or isn't science and is included. Science is really more of a continual, constantly refined and updated process of investigation than some fixed and easily definable set of beliefs or facts.

Secondly, what I think most people mean when they say something "isn't science" is really something more like "this is impossible (or at least implausible or extremely improbable) according to our (sometimes just "my") best current understanding of the universe". However, by this standard artificial gravity (at least, Firefly's version of it) is far more problematic than mind-reading; to get artificial gravity with inertial dampeners requires a fundamental violation of physics as we understand it; no such violation is required for mind-reading. You may not know *how* mind-reading occurs in Firefly, but the same can be said for artificial gravity, and more.

To really judge the plausibility of mind-reading (or any other phenomenon) one needs to examine the purported mechanism for it. Of course, no such mechanism is mentioned in the show (again, the same for artificial gravity) or in this segment of the Signal, which means the author simply assumes any possible explanation for mind-reading is automatically more scientifically implausible than inertial dampeners.

Really, the opposite should be the case: all that should be needed for some kind of mind-reading to take place is for some kind of exchange of information between River and the mind of the subject (the readee?). Perhaps when people think, a physical change occurs in their brain, and this information is holographically encoded into the air molecules they breathe out; maybe when River breathes this air too, her brain is able to decode the hologram and she can "read their mind". There's all kinds of things that are weird with this particular explanation, but it doesn't require any violation of a law of physics and is therefore automatically more plausible than artificial gravity, not less so. And that's only one explanation I came up with off the top of my head!

Finally, the author's use of Amazing Randi actually proves the opposite point of the one he wanted to make. To see this ask yourself the question, why does no one put up a million-dollar prize attempting to debunk artifical gravity with inertial dampeners? That's because no one believes inertial dampeners really exist, they're too implausible and there's no scientific debate about it. However Randi put up his prize particularly because some people find mind-reading so plausible they actually think it exists in the real world, and every once in a while people conduct scientific experiments to test it. So which is more believeable? From a scientific perspective one must say that it's mind-reading.
</END RANT>

Just my 2 cents!

Best Wishes,

Manu

Companion Kate · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2014 Location: UK

Companion Kate · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2014 Location: UK

cinemafreak · Joined: 02 Aug 2005 Posts: 8 Location: North Carolina

Mind reading can be a tricky thing. We all can finish someone's sentences if we are around them enough. Same with women and their monthly friend visiting at the same time if they are very close to one another. Thoughts are electric brain waves, and waves can syncronize (Hence the term, "on the same wavelength" in regards to understanding one's stance). If there are instruments for reading electricity, magnetic waves, any kind of currents, then why couldn't a human being. I think most people thought to be magicians through out the ages have had control over magnetic fields, which is a proven science. Some areas have a greater concentration, as do some people. So maybe River is able to pick up on these patterns or frequencies and "read" people's minds. The other option is that she is able to see the future, and sees what people have done earlier, and then mentions it at the appropriate moment. Or maybe she is a lucky guesser. I reckon only joss knows, unless it's explained in the movie.
_________________

Upcoming Audio Drama Series

kbachelder · Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:16 am Post subject: Re: Empire Magazine

biohaz · Guest

Science of Firefly was gorram BORING this week... Way too long and frankly he killed the fun of some of my favorite episodes simply cause he couldn't suspend disbelief and let things go... bah, please, no more

ElmoFromOK · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 2

ok that photo is on my Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88391685@N00/41747768/
_________________
aka Elmo
from the Elmocast
http://www.elmocast.com

Guest · Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Empire Magazine

White Knight · Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:

I'm just gonna say; I loved the ep.

Lushy · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 136

Guest

First, let me say that I love the Signal and also enjoyed the Science of Firefly segments very much; I just have a problem with one part of the second segment. Oh, and I sincerely apologize for not knowing the author's gender; that was very sloppy on my part.

Companion Kate · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2014 Location: UK

errhead · Guest

Serenity was not without power during out of gas, they had power for lights and radio and artifical gravity, just not main power. From the observed facts in the verse maintaining artifical gravity does not cause a significant impact in the fuel usage, or during the pilot when Wash says they don't have enough fuel to travel to Persephone as fast as Mal wants they could have cut gravity for the additional efficiency. From Objects in Space we know the artifical gravity field of serenity doesn't extend outside the hull.

Since we have no idea about the method and implementation of their artificial gravity, making definitive statements about what it allows or disallows that violate it's canonical effects seems presumptuous to say the least. Obviously our current understanding is in error, though the dismissal of the obviously existing low-power artifical gravity field technology in the 'verse does explain the pointless digression into extreme terraforming in the earlier episode. Obviously there are artifical gravity plants maintained on all the moons/planets that don't have enough natural gravity, which doesn't require fleets of robots, or hundreds of years.

The problem with terraforming our moon is not the gravity, if you put an atmosphere on it now it would take thousands of years for enough to drift away to be a problem, rather it's the month long days, which would heat up the day side to uninhabitable levels, and cause some pretty spectacular storms

As for the demonstrated existence of psiconics in the 'verse, as far as i know none of the people attempting to get the prize to date have had their brain manipulated by scientists with technology 500 years in advance of our current state of the art, so it's hardly a valid point in discussing river's abilities.

looking at state of the art scientific theory of 1505 and how much of what we have in 2005 would be scoffed at as impossible makes it pretty laughable to use 2005 theories to flatly disprove what's possible in 2505

dreamofpeace · Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 5

[quote="Companion Kate"]

Companion Kate · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 2014 Location: UK

manosdvd · Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Posts: 50 Location: Phoenix, Az

I came here to disagree with the report, in that the Session 1 clip implied that she was in fact NOT psychic at the time, that she was just good at reading people's body language (I always know the guys my sister likes), but reading the thread I gotta throw in some defense of it.

The whole point of exploring the "science" of "science Fiction" is to incite friendly debate. Firefly in particular has very little real science in it, because that's not what the show's about. The whole point that Jubal Early's description of the engine as a beating heart is the most explanation of how it works we get is wonderful to me. Artificial Gravity is simply an obscure idea, really just done to save production costs, and can only be speculated as to what science can hypothetically back it, so really there's no way to solidly state any facts about the Science of Firefly.
The Psychic part is provoking more argument than debate though, and such unkind words about Kate is unnessesary. Granted our fine lady makes a pretty blunt statement that psychics are very much not real, but the science she's basing her statement on is completely valid. The fact that NO solid evidence has ever been found on the subject has to be taken seriously. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" (-Lost World, Michael Cricton) but everything needs to be taken with some level of skepticism. Read a little and you'll find that Atlantis is just an exagerated story told by Plato's buddy Critias (still questions about whether he and Socrates even existed) about the Minoan capital of Thera and YES, the pyramids could be and WERE built by humans alone. Every supposedly definitive account of ESP has been suspect on some level. Most cases of preminition can easily be argued to be a simple mix of intuition and luck. Most professional psychics just excell at telling people what they want to hear. As far as Medium, or other police psychics... well, show me some testable evidence and I'll believe it. I don't consider myself a skeptic, but consider all factors before you accept a claim that doesn't fit with the common view of reality. The truth is out there, but it may very well just be that the world is as boring as we think.

The point is, there's pleanty of things I disagree with Kate on, but I defend her knowledge of the science. She knows a hell of a lot more than I do, and most of the rest of us/you, and explains it well. Show some respect folks.

tweaq · Guest

and remember it IS 500 years in the future. just look at what we've learned in 500 years. i'm pretty sure in 1500 they though flying would be impossible, or fixing people. so maybe we just haven't discovered the science yet.

tweaq · Guest

also...don't what episode it was talked about, but on itunes the ratings are determined by how many times subcribe is clicked (unless they fixed it). but everyone already knew that.