Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Kethinov Jun 26 2009, 04:01 AM

It is unrealistic to assume that all twelve colonies, which are known to be in a single solar system, could all be habitable. Some would be too close to the sun, others too far. And they can't all be even close to the same mass; thus they would have different gravities.

How will the Caprica series deal with this? An advanced terraforming process like Firefly? Unfortunately, Firefly's way of doing it was scientifically problematic too. The atmosphere problem could plausibly be mitigated through the highly advanced terraforming that the show talked about, but the gravity issue can't be solved that way unless the terraforming process can fundamentally alter a planet's mass(!) and even then, how could twelve habitable worlds, even after this terraforming, all coexist in one solar system? The Goldilocks zone of a given star isn't large enough to fit twelve planets, thus it would be fundamentally impossible to have more than a few Earth-like planets (which is stretching it already) in one solar system, terraforming or not.

The only realistic scenario I'm afraid is to have most of the planets be dome communities with artificial life support while the outside of the planet is harsh and lifeless. It's the only explanation that makes sense, assuming all these planets are in one solar system.

The BSG series never really told us one way or the other whether or not the twelve colonies were naturally habitable worlds, but I always suspected that was the assumption, which made me cringe. I hope Caprica doesn't turn a dodged technical problem on BSG into an real technical problem as we're much more likely to see the other eleven colonies in this series than we were in BSG.

Posted by: dsgtdave Jun 26 2009, 08:23 AM

That is a not lost on me either. Check this out:

The Twelve Colonies of Kobol are located in the star system Cyrannus.

Caprica, Scorpia (Razor), and Tauron (Razor) have been shown as actual planets. Caprica's surface (mostly its cities and wooded areas) have been seen, and only a glimpse of Tauron's surface has been shown (Razor). No other descriptions are available of the other colonies in terms of their celestial type: Minor planet, moon, or major planet. However, in the Miniseries, Elosha states that the tribes settled onto "12 worlds." While the use of "worlds" is ambiguous, the Colonies are noted as independent, habitable celestial bodies. In the Miniseries, Adama reports that nuclear detonations were reported on the planets Aerilon, Picon, Sagittarion and Gemenon, saying that at least those four Coloinies were planets.

Although Commander Adama and President Roslin mention leaving the star system, the series itself is ambiguous as to whether all colonies are located in one star system. However, Caprica, Virgon, and Ragnar (based on tactical data related by Lieutenant Felix Gaeta)[6 are (Miniseries). In a blog entry Ronald D. Moore states that all planets are situated within one system, in keeping with the Original Series.

The Twelve Colonies had approximately 20 billion inhabitants prior to the Cylon attack (The Resistance) and maintained some minor observatories and listening posts in outlying star systems. Economic activity, such as tylium mining also occurred outside of the immediate vicinity around the Colonies.

Posted by: theenforcer2 Jun 26 2009, 10:18 AM

I suspect that the authors may resort to a spiritual reason for why there are 12 habitable planets in one solar system.

The Enforcer.

Posted by: Kethinov Jun 26 2009, 03:30 PM

Oh man, I forgot about that. Okay, that means three are definitely habitable worlds. I can still live with that. But the rest better be domed colonies!

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jun 27 2009, 12:35 AM

I thought it was 50+ billion people, according to Colonel Tigh in Season 3.

Posted by: jstanfield Jul 12 2009, 02:16 PM

I don't think it was "dodged", so much as it was "unnecessary."

Moore's goal from the beginning was to make a character-based saga that included only relevant information about the universe in which they inhabited. We know there were dozens of Battlestars, yet only a few were shown or mentioned. We know they had FTL jump drives, but never got an explanation of their workings. We only saw Caprica because it was the seat of culture and politics in the Colonies, thus the center of all really important action; there was no reason to mention the other worlds outside of giving context to the characters.

Does it matter if all Twelve Colonies are separate naturally-formed human-habitable planets? How does that fact motivate the plot, or give a character's actions meaning?

Granted, a huge part of being a science fiction fan is all about expanded universe material, but outside of the narrative a lot of that material is useless information. Look at Star Trek -- the non-narrative material outweighs the actual stories and characters by magnitudes of volume -- no wonder JJ Abrams saw fit to reboot Trek in a new timeline, rather than tell another story within established canon. (Have you ever read the official rules for submitting a manuscript of a Trek novel? It makes the Book of Leviticus look like a list of friendly suggestions.)

Having said all that, though, I stand behind a previous post in which I expressed a desire to see webisodes that expanded the universe some. EU material isn't a bad thing in moderation, but too much of it, and people stop caring about the stories told within that universe.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 13 2009, 02:12 PM

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 15 2009, 06:10 AM

I think it's worth noting that this issue isn't some obscure expanded universe fanwanking but instead a possible serious flaw in the basic premise of the story if it is poorly executed.

Look at Stargate - it has many of the same virtues BSG has in terms of spectacular characterization, storytelling, production quality, etc, but it too suffered from a serious problem with its premise: everyone speaks English without a coherent explanation. Even civilizations in other galaxies that never possibly could have learned English speak it. (e.g. Teyla.) But the producers don't really care whether it makes sense or not. (Sadly neither does most of the audience...)

I'm hoping the same thing doesn't happen here with this issue. This is science fiction for gods' sakes. They should care about getting the science right.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 15 2009, 03:07 PM

It's an infinite universe with many variants of solar systems. I'm pretty sure it is quite possible to even have as much as 30 habitable planets in a single system.

Let's not forget, this is a science-fiction show too.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 15 2009, 07:37 PM

Sorry, no, it's really not possible. The goldilocks zone of a given star system isn't big enough to fit that many planets. It is stretching realism to assume even the three confirmed habitable worlds we already know of would fit.

Posted by: RollingPaper Jul 15 2009, 11:56 PM

Sometimes, the simpler, the better.

How many cards do you want?

*shuffles deck*

-RP

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 16 2009, 01:03 PM

In my opinion, this is a classic case of thinking of "We are the center of the universe" model of science. Which, in realism, is too narrow to consider in an infinite and unexplored environment. Who would've thought that it would be possible to see a solar system with 4 suns in it? Who would've thought that a comet about the size of Jupiter is just a smaller piece of a planet flying about in a sea of cosmos of gravity? Who would've thought of a solar system that contains more than 9 planets in it?

Given that this is a science fiction show that explores the "What ifs" in our lives, perhaps it's plausible to assume and go along with the possibility that the zone can be naturally made in a brand new system to cover most of itself. I understand that you are basing this on Tauron, and that scene in Caprica with Joseph Adama and Daniel Graystone after the C-Bucs lost their game, in the pilot episode. But, in this story line, whether it's terraformed or not, all 12 planets are inhabited by humans.

For a more life science perspective that you are banking on, currently scientist are trying to figure out if life existed on other planets in our solar system. If Mars had an atmosphere, that will leave reasonable questioning to theorize planetary environment changes on other celestial bodies in our system, like Pluto, perhaps even Jupiter too. It's definitely solid underneath that thick environment.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 16 2009, 05:02 PM

We have explored enough of the universe to know that habitable planets should be a pretty rare thing. BSG's writers were aware of this at least on some level, as it was the basis of Tigh's line in Water: "Most planets are just hunks of rock or balls of gas. The galaxy is a pretty barren and desolate place when you get right down to it." It follows that two habitable planets in one solar system should be exponentially more rare. As I said, the notion that three are naturally habitable in Caprica's solar system is stretching the bounds of realism. The assumption that twelve are is simply impossible. It's like saying that it's possible to win the lottery every day for the rest of your life. It's so highly, highly, highly unlikely that for all intents and purposes it simply cannot, and will not, ever happen.

With terraforming, the only way it would be plausible if in addition to being able to alter a planet's size, mass, and density, they could also move it into the goldilocks zone in an identical orbit to, say, Caprica, but ahead of it or behind it by enough days that the gravitational field of the two planets did not affect each other. Supposing this kind of technology, it should be possible to stagger twelve planets one month apart each. The idea here would be that when it's January on Caprica, it's February on Tauron and their position in orbit reflects this. This is assuming the orbits of the planets are relatively Earth-like. And even with all that, it's still too much for me to swallow. If they have the technology to engineer solar systems in that way, right down to recalibrating orbits, their society as a whole should be a whole lot more technologically advanced.




This isn't a what if, it's a total fantasy. It's like trying to argue that The Force on Star Wars is realistic and could actually happen. Star Wars is fun, but nobody (sane) is trying to argue that it's realistic.



Assuming the theories about ancient life on Mars are true, life existed on Mars to the exclusion of life on Earth because Mars was in the habitable zone of our significantly younger sun at a time when Earth was not. As the solar system aged, the habitable zone shifted. Mars lost its atmosphere, Earth gained one. Thus, this history demonstrates that two habitable planets existing in a solar system at the same is very unlikely. In addition to this, planets like Mars and especially Jupiter have extremely different gravities which even if the atmosphere were terraformed somehow would still be all but uninhabitable due to the gravitational mismatch. The planets we've seen on BSG have all been depicted as having Earth-normal gravity.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 17 2009, 01:04 PM

For any fellow poster who is unable to follow what is going on here, click this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability, and this http://science.jpl.nasa.gov/PlanetaryScience/PlanetaryHabitability/index.cfm.

No, we have not explored enough of the universe, for it is infinitely vast. Sure, within our observing technologies we only see mostly uninhabited planets from very, very, very far distances, but even that is an assumption based on what various criteria’s we define as parameters of life, like liquid-ammonia solution, and how much more we must learn about solar systems in the first place. N.A.S.A. has stated, “Extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism.” This habitable zone, a sub-section of “planetary habitability”, is mostly based on our solar system as a model base. To compare the 12 Colonies to our solar system would be sort of a mistake. Given that we do not know the full details of 12 Colonies System, like gravity, planetary rotations, including around the sun, moons, other uninhabited planets, like a gas giant planet, and/or an asteroid belt (If it even has these two to begin with.), which would lead to be sort of foolish to assume that it is exactly the same as our own in the first place, especially when this sub-section is entirely theoretical, and currently still does not have a qualifying common model for the entire universe, in the first place. As I stated before, this is yet another classic case of thinking, “We are the center of the universe” model of science.

With an infinite and vast universe, the possibilities are still considerable, even if it’s only 0.001%. Imagine a solar system born and creating 12 “habitable planets”, all of them with a single moon, each planet able to sustain life and get lots of sun equally, they all have water, and rotate and generate similar amount of gravity given their different positions in the system. When the inhabitants of Kobol learned of this system’s existence, I’m pretty sure, it would be the most ideal place to move to, don’t you think so? I think so.



If they had terraforming technologies, they could’ve terraformed any system they wanted. Who said terraforming had to redecorate the entire system itself??? That’s not what terraforming is in the first place. What you’re describing is a genesis device on a system scale, rather than a planetary one. Yeah, I watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan the other night. Remember, Tauron has no vegetation, so it’s quite possible they have terraforming technology that does not require your list of system feng shui, or a planetary phenomenal bio-mechanism and/or organism that generates naturally an oxygen and/or water rich environment.



Actually, it is more “What if” than fantasy, because it’s based on some science principles that outweigh Star Wars. And I noticed you dodged your own imagination on this subject, considering it’s already part of the story line in the first place, and sealed in story line truth. Trust me, go along with it, you’ll feel better, instead of beating yourself over it.



Okay, now we’re getting somewhere with this theory, “shifted” you stated. Then it is plausible in our model of the habitable zone that Pluto at one time was habitable. If there is an inner zone, wouldn’t it be possible to ask, “Why not an outer zone from Jupiter?” And include the statement that a habitable zone is not restricted when no obstacles are present in the system. Therefore it is possible that a system's habitable zone can become even bigger and cover most of the system.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 17 2009, 03:48 PM

Firstly, you cannot simply dismiss what we know about planetary habitability simply because of its theoretical basis. That's like dismissing the theories of gravity or evolution for their theoretical bases. The fact of the matter is we do know quite a bit about this subject due to empirical study. And since the colonials are human, it is valid to assume that the planetary habitability of the twelve colonies should be subject to what we presently know about planetary habitability with some wiggle room for reasonable possibilities currently unknown to science. Twelve habitable worlds coexisting in one solar system is not a reasonable possibility based on the current framework.



The possibilities are much smaller than that, by several orders of magnitude. As I said, the odds are best comparable to winning the lottery every day for your entire life.



That is what would be required to for the terraforming explanation to actually be plausible.



If by that you mean magic pixie dust, then sure... I'm giving you reasonable criteria based on real science that outlines what the prerequisites are for planetary habitability, and you're responding by making stuff up with no basis in reality!

(Also it was not stated that Tauron had no vegetation, just no flowers. From what we saw in Razor, it is likely Tauron does have vegetation.)



No, it isn't. Pluto is too small and much, much too far away from the sun at any stage in its life cycle.



This might be a possibility for primitive or microbial life (e.g. Jupiter's moon Europa), but Earth-like planets being supported in such an exotic environment is an extremely unlikely possibility. Unless we're back in magic pixie dust land.



No, it isn't. The zone is based on distance from the sun. Too close is too hot, too far is too cold. (That's why it is also called the goldilocks zone.) Simple physics...

Posted by: dsgtdave Jul 17 2009, 04:49 PM

pixie dust...hehehehe. I think you about covered it Kethinov.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 17 2009, 05:09 PM

Also I came across this interesting map that someone created extrapolating Firefly's solar system: http://www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=1737

The replies in that thread have some acknowledgement of the highly improbable nature of such a configuration. Notice how in order to make the concept of the "core planets" realistic they are all staggered in the manner I described above. Some folks even refer to this sort of thing as "fantasy physics."

Unfortunately, if we are to be forced to swallow the same idea in Caprica, similar doses of "fantasy physics" will be required.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 17 2009, 11:42 PM

Okay, you need to first understand that theories are merely educated guesses and shouldn’t be taken as 100% fool proof facts. Until these theories are proven as facts, we can then accept them as truths. Just because I’m not fully convinced, doesn’t necessarily mean, I’m totally disagreeing with the notion of the limitations of the habitable zone. You need to calm down. Furthermore, we have much more studying to do in the universe to better understand with what we are all seeing. It’s like we’re watching animals from a very far distance and just guessing as to what they do to survive. You have to get up-close and personal to find out a great many things. In my opinion, your empirical studies need much improvement to better understand what is guessing, and what is truth, my friend.

It is very possible for 12 habitable planets to coexist in a single system, simply because there is no evidence or proof that negates this possibility in the first place with the current levels of knowledge we’ve managed to accumulate thus far in our endeavors to better understand the universe. Under our model as a habitable zone, sure, the 12 Colonies wouldn’t fit, “IF” they do have a gas giant, not enough moons, unsuitable atmospheres, and no means of supporting life as we understand it from a negative and limited perspective, however, . . . the 12 Colonies “is not like our system” in the first place. It’s been apart of the story lines and therefore making life supporting habitation “possible and fact”, given the possible conditions making it plausible and acceptable to believe reasonably and within the boundaries of our current level of understanding of the universe in a more encouraging and open-mind point of views.



You can argue the small chances in life are, much like a super shy virgin managing to sum up enough courage to approach the perfect mate and arrange the first date. Nonetheless, whether it’s a small percentage in a lottery or a first date, it is still possible in an infinite and vast universe. You do know that people do win the lottery, right?



Terraforming is still in it’s infancy. The objectivity of terraforming is commanding nature itself to bend to the will of humanity without losing the wonders of what has been already provided. We might as well just create an artificial solar system then, and call it system construction, rather than terraforming.



Yes, you’re giving reasonable “guesses”, of a negative nature, while I’m providing adequate and sufficient reasonable guesses of a more positive nature while at the same time, placing “reasonable doubt” in this “theoretical” argument you have presented in here, in which case you ignore intently in your replies.

I guess you missed these two scriptures then, . . .



For such lowly insults used in this fashion, it sure does indicate more on the no vegetation then just flowers.



What if Pluto was habitable that we are unaware of it, and some planetary holocaust destroyed it’s capabilities for habitation long ago?



As I stated before, this is a classic case of “We are the center of the universe” model of science and not to the universe itself, where the truth is.



I’m sure creatures on our world including those people living in such dangerous conditions would disagree with you whole-heartedly. Plus, it makes me wonder if you truly did study planetary habitability in the first place.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 17 2009, 11:47 PM

Interesting. Thanks for the link. I'm sure Caprica/Battlestar Galactica is far more "What if" than Firefly.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 18 2009, 01:36 AM

Since we have evidence which both supports my position and casts significant doubt on yours, arguing that my position should not be considered correct until yours is explicitly disproven is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, a form of fallacious reasoning. As such, if the writers of Caprica are going to depict such a highly improbable solar system configuration, they need to give us an adequate substantiation for something our science says cannot happen naturally.



People don't win the lottery every day for their entire lives.



Oh I agree with that entirely. This is why I think it would be horribly lame if the writers choose to depict all twelve colonies as habitable worlds. Since it's impossible for twelve habitable worlds to form naturally in one solar system, we would have to assume the Colonials used this hyper-advanced terraforming. If the Colonials have the ability to "construct" solar systems as you say, why stop at twelve colonies? (Among other logical problems.)

So in that case, the only assumption we're left with is some super advanced, long gone ancient civilization (or perhaps "God" ...sigh) did it and left it that way, then disappeared for whatever reason, in which case the Colonials just stumbled on this wondrous place. But even with that being the case, why isn't anyone on Caprica marveling at the incredible improbability of how their solar system came to be and investigating its origins? When one's solar system doesn't look anything remotely like the rest of the observable universe, one tends to be somewhat vexed by this.



Actually, you haven't provided any reasonable doubt to dispute the validity of the current theories of planetary habitability at all. But even if you could, that would not prove that twelve naturally habitable worlds forming in one solar system is even remotely possible.



But we saw grass on Tauron in Razor. Granted it was a pretty barren landscape, but nothing we have seen so far should lead us to conclude there is no vegetation at all on Tauron. However, I certainly think it would be a cool detail if they continued on the trend of depicting Tauron as fairly barren. If it's near the edge of the habitable zone of their solar system's star, it would explain that and help with the realism problem a bit.



For that to be the case, this hypothetical planetary holocaust would have had to do the following:
1. Make the planet over three times smaller
2. Move it to the outer edge of its solar system
3. Fundamentally alter its geological composition
4. Remove most of its atmosphere

Remember what I said about winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life? This could never have happened.



Dangerous conditions like the extreme Antarctic or the Sahara at least have breathable air and livable temperatures, if on the fringe of what can be tolerated by the human body. Any planet outside the habitable zone would in addition to having a toxic unbreathable atmosphere also have temperature extremes that your body simply could not withstand at all.



Careful now.

Posted by: Areal Jul 18 2009, 02:07 AM

Just my humble, uneducated opinion here, but the more I learn and see of the universe, the more I realise how incredibly vast it actually is.
Seriously, with the millions of galaxies we can see now, with their millions of stars, I find the word "impossible" very hard to agree with.
The more I learn the more I realise I don't know, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 18 2009, 02:10 AM

The degree of improbability is so, extremely, extremely unlikely though that for all intents and purposes it is impossible. As I said, even in our awesomely vast universe, the odds here are like winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 18 2009, 07:17 AM

What you misunderstand is that the model of our solar system to match that against the 12 Colonies solar system is misguided under the assumption that our 9 planet solar system, 8 if you don’t want to count Pluto, is on par with a 12 planet solar system. To you, it’s like stated 1 x 3 = 1 Now, if you’re going back to 2006 and were apart of the plan to categorize our solar system to 12 planets or even 24 planets, then I can understand your given frustration in this story line of Caprica. All scientists are totally skeptical about the habitation zone, under the headlining of defining life and evidence in discoveries of extrasolar planets not even in the zone, period. Such as Gliese 876 b, that orbits around a red dwarf star closer than our Mercury orbits our Sun.

All we have going on here is that very brief showing of the 12 Colonies solar system in the episode, “Daybreak”, of Battlestar Galactica. Please scroll up where I posted it. Now, ask yourself this simple question, . . .

“Does that look like our solar system?”

No, I didn’t think so.



Don’t you mean, “can” happen naturally, instead of “cannot”. Hmmm.



Visit Las Vegas then. Somebody wins some grand prize everyday.



But there is no solid evidence to clearly state that the birth of solar systems are limited to 9 planets or less, let alone completely negating the possibility that such a phenomenon will only create at the most 2 habitable planets within a “theoretical” zone. Last time I checked, there are over 300 extrasolar planets and more are found each year, and some are not found within this so called “zone”. I was hoping the “shifting” would spark “what ifs” in your findings.

That’s sort of a rhetorical question, given that there are 12 Tribes and all.



Ouch, vex is a strong word to use. If you were a Kobolian Human Being moving to this one in an astronomical odds against in the universe, won’t you be more grateful, rather than spiteful for finding a wonder in the first place? I know I would be very grateful and study it, rather than condemning it to the euphoric pixie dust land.



Nor does it negate or flat out denies it’s possibility that 12 naturally created habitable planets can be formed either.



Tauron experienced a civil war before the start of the Caprica. During this time, all 12 Colonies are not yet united under the Articles of Colonization. What if it is barren with no vegetation, until an initiative was made that helped change the course of the ecological system on Tauron to have some vegetation, by fertilization and planting, given time as the variable, that not much has been made at the outbreak of the First Cylon War. Hence, the grass in Razor, and William Adam is flying his Viper Mark II and rollin’ hard sixes while shooting Cylons out Galacrica’s sky/space.



I still remember those 20+ asteroids hitting Jupiter that one time.



Ah, but see, “if” they were habitable planets without the toxic, nasty negative variables, it would still be livable.



I am, I’m just guessing, given the current awareness being presented thus far in this fun discussion.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 18 2009, 11:39 PM

None of those statements are relevant to this discussion.

1. Planetary habitability is based on a given planet's distance from the sun, not how many planets are in the system. Twelve planets cannot form occupying the same orbital zone, thus twelve planets cannot be naturally habitable.

2. This is because the habitable zone of a red dwarf such as Gliese 876 is located much closer to the star than with a star like ours. Thus, if Earth orbited Gliese 876 at the same distance from that star as it does from our star, it would not be habitable. (For the record, Gliese 876 b despite being in the habitable zone is known not to be habitable [for humans] anyway due to the composition of the planet's atmosphere and geology.)

3. Asteroids hitting Jupiter has absolutely no relevance to this discussion whatsoever and certainly does not make your fantasy of Pluto having once possibly been habitable any more realistic.



That statement is patently false.



Those are all straw man arguments.

1. I said what I meant which was that for all intents and purposes it cannot happen naturally.

2. I did not say anything about the odds of winning in Vegas. My analogy was about the odds of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life, which can't happen.

3. I didn't say solar systems were limited to nine planets. I said solar systems can't have twelve naturally habitable planets.



Those arguments are both argumentum ad ignorantiam.

1. I already explained to you that concluding that your argument is correct simply because there is not explicit evidence to fully disprove it is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

2. This scenario about Tauron is plausible, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever (yet) that it is true. You cannot conclude that there is no vegetation on Tauron until you see actual evidence of this.



But being outside the habitable zone, they wouldn't be. At least not without magic pixie dust. And twelve planets cannot naturally form in the habitable zone. At least not without magic pixie dust.



Your "guess" about me not knowing what I'm talking about is both wrong and insulting, if a bit ironic. So let it go.

Posted by: Dione Jul 18 2009, 11:43 PM

I was under the impression that the 12 planets were terraformed by the colonials?

did I mention this already?

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 18 2009, 11:47 PM

Read the thread? This explanation is implausible for reasons already gone over in the thread a number of times.

Posted by: Dione Jul 19 2009, 12:27 AM

Nope, I haven't. But in any case, it doesn't matter, we're dealing with BSG, which is filled with inconsistencies, and it's sci-fi.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 19 2009, 12:32 AM

I wouldn't necessarily describe BSG as "filled" with inconsistencies. Its portrayal (aside from the plethora of annoying details attributed to "god" in the ending) has been quite realistic with the striving for portraying Newtonian physics in space correctly and so forth. And "it's sci-fi" isn't a good excuse for violating basic science. (In the places that they do.) Moreover, this problem would undermine the very premise the the show, whereas little errors or inconsistencies here and there would not.

Posted by: Dione Jul 19 2009, 12:34 AM

By the way, you're coming off as getting frustrated in this discussion. Ryu is not insulting anybody.

Posted by: Dione Jul 19 2009, 12:36 AM

Well, I'm just going to guess it's hyper-terraforming, or whatever. I mean, yeah, it's not realistic, but neither are 12 naturally habitable worlds..so I don't know.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 19 2009, 12:52 AM

The writers still have an opportunity to give us a realistic portrayal by limiting the terraforming explanation to Tauron and Scorpia, with Caprica being the only truly naturally habitable planet. If they depict the other nine colonies as artificial life support domes, the twelve colonies will be a much more realistic place than those other two implausible options.



Why, because he uses more emoticons than I do? How I'm "coming off" to you doesn't align with reality. You shouldn't project emotions onto me which don't exist.

As for Ryu not having done any insulting, let's do a bit of review. He wrote, "it makes me wonder if you truly did study planetary habitability in the first place." A veiled insult. When I warned him to be careful with that, he wrote in reply: "I am, I’m just guessing, given the current awareness being presented thus far in this fun discussion." A more explicit reiteration of the previous veiled insult. Instead of responding in kind to him I merely pointed out what he's doing. Saying such things is inappropriate, particularly when they are factually incorrect.

Posted by: dsgtdave Jul 19 2009, 06:25 PM

Ryu didn't get suspended for being a witty literal savy guy Dione.

Kethinow has been very receptive to ideas put forward here and has just offered intelligent responses.

Posted by: Areal Jul 19 2009, 10:14 PM

I don't know why Ryu was suspended or when. I do know that from the first time I posted here he has been kind to me, wise and trustworthy.
Yes, he gets passionate about these subjects, but he is optimistic and positive.
I think that this "keithinov" is extremely arrogant and somewhat negative. The most brilliant scientists I have interacted with do not make assertions the way he does. They tend to think more along the lines of "science says nothing is proved to be true, there are only things that our experiments can rule out".
To my knowledge there have been no controlled experiments involving terraforming planets or controlled experiments about what might be involved in the possibility of multiple human-habitable planets orbiting a single star. We simply haven't the ability to perform such experiments at this time.
From what I have learned all we really know is that we don't know much yet.
Science fiction is supposed to be fuel and product of the imagination, not a straightforward prediction of what the future holds.
Let it be fun, don't get so stressed.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 19 2009, 11:58 PM

Here is where we stand in this debate, you’ve given into the notion that with what we’ve found thus far in our endeavors in the field of astrobiology, that is it unlikely a system can create 12 habitable worlds within itself. Meaning you flat out gave out in any possibilities of imagination of the probability of “What if”. I, on the other hand which understands this very well, dares to believe in the possibilities that there is a chance for a system to create a 12 habitable world system in itself, by making variables that goes against the current model, which makes it possible to work, by moving aside the variables that goes against the creation possible.

They are relevant, because if offers a plausible explanation to what we see here in the screenshot I posted. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn’t eliminate the possibilities of “What if it is possible?”. Don’t get me wrong now, back in the finale of Battlestar Galactica, I was an advent poster against the ideas of a second Earth, but in the end, there it was given the circumstances the BSG Team went through in production and writing.

What we are dealing within the known story lines currently is the 12 Tribes of Kobol left for the 12 Colonies System. They arrived and settled in this system. We can assume the following, . . .

There were no 12 planet systems nearby to move to. If there were, why move to this one? Perhaps this system contained 12 “habitable” planets with the unique characteristics to sustain life on all 12 worlds. Even so, perhaps the level of terraforming technology gave a more satisfying conditioning to move to. Given the unique wonder of the system, it would reinforce the religious nature of the human culture conditioning for their time (i.e. The Book of Pythia).

1. Planetary habitability is the measure of the natural potential to develop and sustain life. The current model is our solar system as a base comparison to other solar systems (“We are the center of the universe” thinking of science.), when it is uncertain in a vast, infinite universe, where there still is a chance that it is possible. As I stated before, a nine planet system has different characteristics from a twelve planet system, especially when it comes to a twelve planet system that lacks known details. You should ask yourself, what are the requirements to make it possible that a system can create 12 naturally habitable planets? If you can’t answer this, than imagination and disregarding the possibilities of “what if” spits in the face of the progressions in the field of science. Look at the screenshot I posted of the 12 Colonies System.

2. The habitable zone is a “theoretical” area of a system to create water. Given Europa and the findings on Titan of Jupiter’s orbit that makes this zone unproven. This belief that habitable planets must be within this “theoretical” zone is the basis of water, is not solid enough for conviction to disregard the vast and infinite possibilities of “What if” in our universe. Thank you for proving my point that even an uninhabited planet unsuitable for human life within this “theoretical” zone, doesn’t necessarily mean that all planetary bodies in this zone always capable of supporting human life, period. Sorry, but this theory, in my opinion, is not the model base to which we see here in the story lines, even lesser when using our system as the “center of the universe” thinking. In your initial posting, you clearly point out that Caprica is the only habitable planet within this zone.

3. What are the odds of the same asteroids hitting Jupiter the same way? Hmmm.



Theories are not 100% fact.



1. But you haven’t explored of what “can”. Though with current accumulated data, you can give up and just proclaim blindly that it cannot be possible. That is your choice, however, this theory is incomplete, until we continue studying the universe and how we can measure and gauge the birth of a solar system.

2. Every single lottery winner will disagree with you whole-heartedly in this perspective.


3. I didn’t imply that you did, just proving that giving a criteria based on our system is wrong. Calm down.



1. You can simply say that both of our possibilities are inconclusive, you know?

2. Wow, that’s what I’ve been saying about your theory against the idea of a 12 habitable planetary system.



So your saying Europa and Titan are created by pixie dust then? And any unsuitable extrasolar planet within the zone is made habitation possible by pixie dust?



So when your teacher asked the valid question, “Did you study?”, you took it as an insult? You need to calm down. I’m not insulting you at all. Don’t let your paranoia overcome your better judgment in this interesting discussion we’ve been having.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 20 2009, 12:04 AM

Well, the ones I've met do (aren't anecdotes fun?) because logic and reasoning are central to the scientific method.



That is exactly right. Based on the knowledge we have, we can rule out the possibility that twelve habitable planets could form naturally in a solar system. We can also rule out a terraforming explanation because the technology required to reconfigure a solar system in such a way is quite obviously beyond what the Colonials possess.

The only viable explanation left if that premise is expected to be believed is "God" made it that way, which would be a lame explanation for a show that otherwise is mostly really great science fiction. The most realistic scenario would, as I've said, be one planet is natural (Caprica), two were terraformed (Tauron and Scorpia), and the rest are artificial life support domes on other planets which are incapable of being terraformed.



You don't need to perform such an exotic experiment to conclude that twelve habitable planets forming naturally in a single solar system is a preposterous idea. The facts we already know today and some simple reasoning can logically lead you to that conclusion.



I think I have a right to take up issue with fantasy masquerading as science fiction.

I'm a fan of imagination as much as the next person, but the idea that this could actually happen really is fantasy physics.



I am mystified by this recurring impression. I'm just pointing out that the portrayal of twelve naturally habitable worlds in a single solar system is unrealistic to the extreme based on the scientific knowledge we have today. Exactly how does that make me arrogant or negative?

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 20 2009, 01:41 AM

I've already outlined the requirements, but here it is again. This is the list of requirements that I can think of off hand. There are probably more!
1. Twelve planets must form in the habitable zone.
2. All twelve have nearly identical size.
3. All twelve have nearly identical mass.
4. All twelve have nearly identical densities.
5. All twelve have nearly identical geological composition.
6. All twelve develop oxygen-nitrogen atmospheres capable of supporting human life.
7. All twelve occupy the same orbit, staggered to be far enough part.
8. All twelve orbit at the same speed.

Each of these requirements is extremely unlikely by itself. Compounding these extremely unlikely probabilities eight (and probably more!) times only makes this whole can of worms even more unlikely. Are you starting to see how incredibly, crazily, astronomically unlikely this all is? The odds are infinitesimally small. A probability of something like 0.000[insert fifty quadrillion zeros here]001%!



Those statements are all factually incorrect.

1. Europa and Titan are not habitable. The presence of water is only one requirement for a planet to be habitable.

2. I'm sure at least one lottery winner would agree with me.

3. What we know about planetary habitability is not based solely on the study of our solar system, but on the study of the entire observable universe.

4. You can say it until you're blue in the face, but the facts not only support my argument, they also cast reasonable doubt on yours.



Those are both straw man arguments.

1. I never asserted that all planets in the habitable zone become habitable.

2. I counted this one as a factual error before, but it is also a straw man argument because you are once again ignoring the fact that my analogy is not about winning the lottery once, but about winning the lottery every day for your entire life.



Those statements are both argumentum ad ignorantiam.

1. It is fallacious to assume that finding water on a planet outside the habitable zone somehow invalidates everything we know about planetary habitability.

2. By your reasoning, we should not be allowed to draw any conclusions about anything because our knowledge will always been incomplete.



That statement is a red herring. The odds of asteroids hitting Jupiter have nothing to do with the odds of twelve habitable planets forming in Caprica's solar system.



Why would I say that when it's demonstrably untrue?



Sure, because EmperorRyu's not being insulting at all! Paying attention peanut gallery?



What I find insulting is the hypocrisy in that question, considering that I have demonstrated that you're the one whose facts are in error. Aside from that, any sort of credibility attack is uncalled for in any situation. As I said, you need to let that go.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 20 2009, 01:46 PM

It’s been brought up before. It is possible that all 12 could’ve been terraformed, but with that in mind, they could’ve terraformed any 12 planet solar system closer to Kobol then.



See here? Dione could’ve taken your question as an insult, but did not. You should do the same, my friend.



Exactly. Science fiction. In my opinion, a science fiction story based on our science daring to explore radical ideas to tell a wonderfully written story, performed and created by talented people, is a great way of using our imagination.



Ah, that’s what is frustrating you then. You interpret science fiction as a violation of current science, and not a means of expanding science.



You should take your own advice too my friend.



You have no idea why I got suspended in the first place. By your logical, Nelson Mandela shouldn’t have been taken seriously after he got out of prison then.



I’ll PM you the details, because I know these “few”, do lurk in the threads.



Well, when it does, . . . we all get say, “We told you so.”

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 20 2009, 01:50 PM

1. I disagree with this one because I find that other planetary bodies outside the habitable zone can support human life, “if” conditions on the planets are well suited to sustain life in its orbit around its star.

2 and 3. I disagree with these because the mass of each planet will differ to accommodate orbital positioning. Especially when there is a possibility that not all the planets are within the same orbital rotating axis, meaning there is no great conjunction of 12 aligned planets. Isn’t size and mass the same? But the idea of the possibility of “similar” sized planets would imply the number of moons each planet has in their orbits. I didn’t really want to bother with this one because it is an intriguing idea.

4. Are you talking about atmospheric conditionings on this one?

5. Not necessarily, volcanic activities could vary amongst each planet, in order to sustain similar ecological environments.

6. Totally agree with this one.

7. Disagree, though, . . . perhaps several of them are within such parameters (looking at the picture).

8. Again, 100% agreeable.

Yes, of course I see the odds against, however, I still see it a plausible and possible that it could happen.



1. The habitable zone is a “theoretical” area, where the surface temperatures of any planets present might maintain liquid water. Liquid water is believed to be vital for life, because of the role as a solvent needed for biochemical reactions. Water was chosen as a desireable solvent for life, is because it is the solvent for carbon-based life, like Earth. Sure, they don’t have similar atmospheres as Earth, but still proves at one time they both could’ve had such conditions before.

2. Only if you are such a person who had won such a contest, my friend.

3. Ouch, I wouldn’t use the phrase “entire universe” in that statement, because the universe is vast and infinite. Especially when better telescopes are been made every so now and then in humanity’s existence.

4. When dealing with an infinite universe, there is no saying “it is impossible for this to happen”. Unless you managed to travel infinity, space, and time and come back to tell us that it’s never going to happen? There is an equal amount of doubt in your argument, my friend. Seriously.



1. Scroll up and review your number 1 requirement in your list of musts to have all 12 naturally habitable planets in a single star system.

2. A win is a win, period. Yeah, you can say I’m a member of J.R.R. Tolkien’s word, “Ucatastrophe”.



1. It doesn’t invalidate “everything”, just this theory on the habitable zone. That is blowing things out of proportion.

2. News flash, we’ve always been mostly on an inconclusive level all this time in this discussion of science. Theories, ring a bell?



Are you sure?



Because it is true, given the perimeters of an infinite and vast universe, and to say that it is not, implies that the universe is limited and we’re all bunched up in a clear marble being bounced around by some three fingered “it”. Yeah, I watched the movie, Men In Black the other night.



There not, never has, never meant to be insults in the first place. By the Gods, the insecurities humanity can behold. *sigh*



There was no hypocrisy in that question. It’s a valid question when I’ve brought up reasonable doubt in your theory of the so called “habitable zone” in application to this science fiction show on the 12 Colonies System. You should really take heed in your own advice.

Posted by: dsgtdave Jul 20 2009, 03:08 PM

I read all that mess in okay. When it gets to the point where the other members actively seek a petition to get you tossed what does that tell you? You don't know when enough is enough. If you didn't force your opinion on everyone people wouldn't get so frustrated with you. cest la vi.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 20 2009, 03:49 PM

If they didn't jump off the paranoid end, I won't have to reiterate my views with facts. As far as the petition, it only goes to show that a "few" of them with their so called open minds and understanding in the situation became null, and they just flat out, gave up. If that was a test of friendship, they most certainly failed. In the end, that petition failed since the beginning as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Areal Jul 20 2009, 05:01 PM

Please forgive me for my lack of forum and quoting skills here. But keithinov questioned a few of my comments, so here goes.
The scientists I have come to know (and I find all of them to be brilliant by my standards) are teachers as well as researchers. Each of them has made a huge point of saying "this is what we know now, tomorrow it may change". Perhaps this is a characteristic most often found in educators. I certainly found them to be quite logical and reasonable.
You state that we can "rule out" the possibility that twelve habitable planets could form naturally in a solar system. That we can also "rule out" a terraforming explanation because the technology required is beyond what the colonials possess.
Might I suggest that we know no such thing? That at best we cannot at this time explain how it would be possible? And as I have an active imagination I also see the possibility that in terms of the colonials not possessing the terraforming technology there is the possibility that a more advanced civilisation did the terraforming in the past for reasons known only to themselves. This is the beauty of science fiction for those that want to see it.
You state that one doesn't need to perform exotic experiments to logically come to the conclusions that a star system including twelve human habitable planets is impossible or the impossibility of such terraforming. That sort of statement is what leads me to find you arrogant. I believe that it does take practicle experiments to absolutely rule this sort of thing out. The fact that we haven't the ability to is no excuse to make hard and fast assumptions.
I am no scientist. I am not even very bright LOL. But I do love the possibilities that science fiction leaves for our imaginations.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 20 2009, 07:47 PM

Those are more factual errors.

1. Since I haven't done that, there is no need.

2. Mass of a planet has nothing to do with its orbital positioning.

3. If the planet is to be habitable by humans, it must have gravity of 1g or very close, which requires the planet to be within a very narrow range of size, mass, and density.

4. There is no other way for twelve planets to fit in the habitable zone.

5. The extreme degree of odds against are precisely what make it impossible.

6. No, the habitable zone is the area where planets can form which can sustain life as we know it on Earth, which the Colonials are.

7. No, they could not have. Europa is too small and Titan is too far away from the sun.

8. I'm tired of explaining why that statement is wrong. Let it go.

9. Only in your fantasy pixie dust universe. According to the the actual rules of logic and reasoning, you haven't.

You need to get your facts straight. The number of factual errors in your posts is rapidly increasing and you have repeated many of these errors despite being corrected.



Those are more straw man arguments.

1. I never claimed that. The very purpose of this thread is to propose a scenario in which this science fiction show does not violate current science, which I have already proposed.

2. I didn't. I used the phrase "observable universe."

3. The requirements I outlined for twelve habitable planets to form in Caprica's solar system are not an assertion that all planets which form in the habitable zone become habitable.

4. Yes. I would not have said it otherwise.

Go learn what a straw man argument is and stop committing them.



News flash: "In science, a theory is an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis." - taken from a dictionary definition of the word theory as it applies to the scientific disciplines.

This is why we are supposed to laugh at people who say that something "is just a theory" in an attempt to discredit it. It uses the colloquial definition of the word, not the one that applies to science.



When are you going to learn that this reasoning is fallacious and thus invalid? How many times do I have to tell you that reasoning is argumentum ad ignorantiam? Do you not comprehend what argumentum ad ignorantiam is, or do you simply reject all the rules of logic and reasoning as invalid?



It's not insulting to expect someone to read the thread. Otherwise redundant comments get posted.



The very premise of the habitable zone is that such planets cannot exist outside of it. The only way that could happen is if the whole theory was wrong.



Maybe your intentions are good, but the statements I identified before fit the definition of ad hominem. As does your little jab about insecurities. Use proper debate form.



You can suggest it all you like, but you'd be wrong.



You think I am arrogant because I stated a fact?

Posted by: Areal Jul 20 2009, 09:22 PM

I dare you to prove me wrong.
As for your arrogance, well I don't need to say anything, you keep reinforcing my opinion.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 20 2009, 10:18 PM

Areal, I have already made my case. All you need do is read my previous posts. If you ask me for a more specific clarification though I can provide one.

Posted by: Areal Jul 20 2009, 10:41 PM

I have read your posts. I ask that you prove to me that a star system cannot contain twelve human habitable planets. Your previous posts are simply conjecture. You have not presented any proof that rules out that possibility. You simply quote observations that are very limited.
Give me more?
As I stated, I am no scientist, and no intellectual great, but I can see. Give me something more than "it just isn't possible" because that is not a valid statement IMO.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 21 2009, 12:48 AM

We know from the show that Caprica, Tauron, and Scorpia are all Earth-like planets with normal gravity and oxygen atmospheres with people living on them. The show implies (or at least RDM has implied) that the rest of the twelve colonies, which are known to all be in one solar system, are basically the same. They too all have normal gravity and oxygen atmospheres with people living on them. Probably some variation in weather conditions and vegetation / fauna levels, but all fully habitable. It is bad science for the writers to expect us to buy this. Here's a breakdown of some of the most important issues:

1. Gravity problem: all twelve colonies would have to be nearly identical in size, mass, and density in order to have Earth-normal gravity. From what we have observed of the universe, no two planets have ever been even close to this much alike, much less twelve in the same solar system being this much alike. I can suspend disbelief on this problem. It's pretty unlikely, but with billions of stars I suppose it might possible to happen once. Maybe twice. But then we have this:

2. Atmosphere problem: all of these twelve colonies which miraculously have the same gravities would now have to have nearly identical atmospheres so the Colonials could breathe. Again, from what we have observed of the universe, no two planets have ever been even close to this much alike in atmosphere, much less twelve in the same solar system being this much alike in atmosphere on top of being that much alike in size, mass, and densities. This is the point at which it crosses the line of realism and we still haven't even gotten to the rest of the requirements.

3. Temperature problem: in order for people to live on these planets without being boiled to death or frozen to death, they would in addition to all that above all have to be located within a very specific range from their sun, which is not a very large range. In all the planets we've imaged, only a few have been on the fringe of the habitable zone of their stars and none of them have solved problems #1 and #2. The odds of finding even one planet like this are extremely small, much less twelve in a single solar system.

4. The orbit problem: even if somehow, miraculously (and I stress at this point it would be stupendously miraculous) twelve planets were to form in a solar system which overcame all three of the aforementioned problems, they couldn't just have any old orbit within that relatively small habitable zone, their orbits would have to be identical. Not similar, identical. Otherwise they'd crash into each other because they'd be orbiting at different speeds and trajectories. Fast forward a few billion years and you've got planet billiards and then *poof* planets are no longer habitable. We have never seen anything even close to planets being staggered in this manner with even two planets, much less twelve.

As for limited observations, our observations will always be limited. That isn't what's important. What's important is everything we have seen so far casts more and more doubt that this idea is plausible and nothing we have seen so far supports the idea that it could happen. We thus must assume that it cannot happen until we discover evidence to the contrary, which is highly unlikely to the extreme. It's like arguing that if your kids stop eating they might not die. I can imagine that possibility all I want, but that doesn't mean it could actually happen.

Posted by: Areal Jul 21 2009, 01:15 AM

I will read your post more thoroughly tomorrow when I am awake. As for your last statement that if the children stopped eating they might not die as an example. Well there are hundreds of children in hospitals who cannot eat. They do not starve because they can be tube fed. I know of an extremely rare bird, a palm cockatoo who stopped eating for almost a year. Love did not die because he was tube fed by those who cared for him. They would have continued to tube him as long as he refused to eat, but eventually he decided to eat on his own. His story is documented in the book published by the Avicultural Breeding and Research Center (ABRC).
Tomorrow I will address whatever other claims you have made here.
Goodnight

Posted by: adamgnome Jul 21 2009, 01:41 AM

Didn't Elosha say something along those lines already?

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 21 2009, 01:46 AM

I think it should be obvious that being fed using any means is covered by my analogy.



I don't think so, but I would be very interested if you could find me a quote. My guess is anything she did say that leans in this direction was more meant to be taken as they felt that the gods guided them on their travels, not that the gods had created a new solar system for them to live in.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 21 2009, 01:40 PM

1. Please look back at your previous posting under the section on “insulting”.

2. The Earth is considered low mass when compared to the Solar System’s gas giants, but it is largest, by diameter and mass, and densed of all known terrestrial bodies. It is large enough to retain an atmosphere through gravity alone and large enough that its molten core remains a heating engine, driving the diverse geology of the surface. Mars by contrast, is nearly geologically dead and has lost much of its atmosphere. Thus, it would be fair to infer that the lower mass limit for habitability lies somewhere between that of Mars and Earth or Venus. Through the good graces of imagination in the realm of science, a 2008 study by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics suggests that the dividing line may be higher. Earth may in fact lie on the lower boundary of habitability, since if it were any smaller, plate tectonics would be unexpected. Venus, which is 85% of Earth’s mass, hasn’t shown any signs of tectonic activity. Conversely, the introduction of “Super-Earths”, terrestrial planets with higher masses than Earth, is given form and placed within the habitable range of consideration in the interests of science. Please take a look at this http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/44568/title/solar_systems_future_could_be_bumpy, as another mass factor.

3. I never agreed it was a requirement in the first place. You should just quote uneditedly.

4. Either drop the habitation zone, or modify the habitation zone in order for it to work. If you can’t, then why bother?

5. So long as there is a possibility in an infinite universe, there is always a chance. And the word impossible is used by those who are unable to stand up to the challenges to which this imagination proposes, by the story lines.

6. Please review the definition of the habitation zone.

7. That’s a mere excuse by your interpretations then if you cannot provide adequate proof that Titan and Europia did not have such conditions before. As I stated, unless you traveled infinity, space, and time, and video captured solid evidence, or more realistically, done some digging on them and found evidence to say otherwise. Until then, you cannot refute the “What if”, period.

8. That’s because you’re failing in convincing me with your debate strategies.

9. Simply because you refuse to believe in “What if” and unable to accept the possibilities that you’re wrong in your proposal on this subject matter.



1. This is funny. You’ve been stating all this time, that it does violate science.

2. Meaning there is an infinite more to observe in the universe.

3. Yes it does when it is in lieu of the 12 Colonies System story lines that all 12 worlds are occupied and populated for over 2000 years.

4. Thank you for confirming our suspicions that imagination is not really an option in your equations.

Blindly labeling my arguments is not going to help you convince me that your argument is credible, in my opinion.



News in review: “Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory.”

Pride goeth before thy fall, my friend.



Then you do accept that your arugment is a mere possibility and a theory and not factual enough to be decreed as a law of nature. If you don’t, all of this describes you my friend, definitely not me.



Whatev.



At least you acknowledge it as a “theory” and not a fact, and you have the courage to admit it’s possibly wrong. Good progress in your argument, in my opinion.



And a “few” posters in here think I’m totally hostile.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 21 2009, 01:43 PM

Here is an example to consider, . . . Gilese 581 c has an estimated 5 times the mass of Earth, but is unlikely to have 5 times the gravity. If its mass is no more than 5 times that of Earth, as predicted, and if it is a rocky planet with a large iron core, it should have a radius approximately 50% larger than that of Earth. Gravity on such a planet’s surface would be approximately 2.2 times as strong as on Earth. If it is an icy or watery planet, its radius might be as large as twice the Earth’s, in which its gravity might be no more than 1.25 times as strong as Earth. This gives us plenty to imagine what the surface geographical make-up is like on each of the 12 Colonies that would make it possible to be within Earth norm gravity.



If all the atmosphere conditionings are acceptable to sustain human life, this doesn’t qualify as a problem.



Atmospheres do mitigate such effects from the sun, you do know that, right? And volcanic activities can contribute to keeping a nice cozy planetary life if the world is far away.



Again, the orbits can vary and still sustain human life.



The purpose of science is to figure out the mysteries of knowledge we have yet to learn, not be confined of what we already know, but the possibilities of “What if”. We don’t just blindly assume the most idiotic negative limitations of human potential, but the limitless and possibly achievements humanity can make through the use of imagination given within our responsibilities to understand wisely, and hopefully in a positive and peaceful means as much as possible.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 21 2009, 06:37 PM

EmperorRyu, I could once again make an exhaustive list of all the fallacies and factual errors in your post which are even more numerous than before, but I'm going to focus instead on one, very important thing. We can come back to the rest later if necessary, but we need to get past this issue first.

Examine this exchange closely. Note how when I asked you if you comprehended that your argument is fallacious, you responded with the exact same fallacy. That isn't the only place you've done this of course, but it's the clearest example. In debate it is not allowed to repeat arguments which are demonstrated to be fallacious. I'll ask again, do you reject the rules of debate or do you simply not understand why this argument is fallacious? If I can't get you past this problem, there's no reason to continue with the rest.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 22 2009, 12:48 PM

You can stall all you want to review your studies, but if you truly want to deviate from the topic of discussion, so be it. Your argument's grave, not mine.

Ever since you started making these comments, you forgot that "YOU" were the one who proposed this "theory" about the 12 Colonies System. "I" am the one "TESTING" your "theory", and by and far, it does "NOT" make the cut and fails and, in my opinion, falls short of consideration. You make it "sound" like you've done "some" studying, but haven't done a very good job in covering all the gaps in your proposal to pass my testings. Now as for the debate format, "YOU DID NOT LAY ANY TERMS OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT NOR DID I AGREE TO SUCH TERMS IN THE FIRST PLACE, PERIOD!" Let alone the audacity to mock anyone that doesn't use "YOUR" rules and make it "SOUND" like its a must for every single discussion that takes place daily for everybody in the world. Which, in my opinion, is lame and a cop-out, with a ruse on top, in a desperate attempt to gain some moral high ground, which isn't that high in your argument, in a losing situation. The "ONLY RULES" that matter are the rules stated and enforced by the those who created and monitor this forum.

Now, if you are unwilling to understand other people's perspectives, my suggestion would be, don't get into a "debate" with other people until you do.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 22 2009, 03:32 PM

Sorry, that's not how it works. You can pretend they don't exist all you want, but debate has rules. They're pretty basic things like don't make fallacious arguments and don't base your arguments off of factual errors. People break the rules by accident all the time, and that's okay. But once you're corrected you need to stop. You're not stopping with these errors, you're standing by them as if they're valid because you've apparently decided to reject the rules.

Debating with someone who refuses to follow the rules is like playing sports with someone who refuses to follow the rules. We can't have somebody running all over the basketball court without dribbling the ball. If this person refuses to stop, he's not allowed to play anymore. I'm not playing with you anymore, EmperorRyu, until you learn how to stop violating the rules of debate. You can start by learning what an ad hominem is. Your last post (much of what I omitted quoting) was full of them.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 22 2009, 09:03 PM

I do humbly apologies to inform you that this entire reply of yours is a total fallacy and lacking in grammar comprehension.

I tried looking for this supposed basic rules of debating of yours, and the funny thing is, it's nowhere to be found. Here is what was accurate description found, . . .

Online debating is an increasing popular and available on the Internet, which offers a wide range of frequent differing opinions. These are often expressed via flaming and other forms of argumentation, which consist primarily of assertions, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards. The styles of debate are interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because of the obvious lack of time restraints. Forums are moderated, and welcome online debaters in a friendly format so all may speak their pros and cons. Many people use this to reinforce their points, or drop their weaker opinions on things, many times for debate in formal debates, or for fun arguments with friends. The ease-of-use and friendly environments make new debaters welcome to share their many opinions in many communities.

http://forums.syfy.com/index.php?act=rules.

Or you can move your cursor to the "Rules" link located at the near to the top right hand corner of the forum display window.

Now if you have a copy of this set of rules you have for yourself, please share them, so we can better understand why you totally avoided the subject topic altogether.

Posted by: Azselendor Jul 23 2009, 01:16 AM

No Offense here,

but reading this topic is like watching a chess player compete against a person that only plays checkers. Kethinov, the chess player, has laid out some very valid and well-supported scientific arguments on this topic. Like any good chess player, Kethinov logically explained his points without flaming anyone or raising the tone of this discussion.

On the other hand, Ryu, you have been playing checkers. I don't intend to insult you, but I state that this comment is structured as constructive criticism. I do find it odd you brought up this forums rules, however.

For others following this topic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate Debate styles and rules. Note internet debate was cut'n'paste earlier in this thread.



The premise here is this "Is it realistic to assume that the 12 colonies was in one solar system consisting of 12 habitable planets?"

In order to answer this, we need to look at what evidence we have.
- We know of at least 5 earth-like worlds 12 colonies. Caprica, Aerilon (shown in a picture), Scorpia, Tauron, Picon (shown with a blue sky in Hero)
- We know of at least 3 worlds in the same star system. Caprica, Virgon, and Ragnar
- We know of at least one gas giant in the star system. Ragnar
- We know of at least one moon (miniseries)
- RDM has commented that all 12 worlds at in one system, but doesn't state what kind of worlds they are nor has this even been stated in show by any character.
- Tigh, on camera did state all the colonies were planets, but not what type of planets nor if they were in the same system.
- The colonies clearly have some form of space travel, dating back over 3,600 years, that was practical due to the lack of divergent evolution between the population of the 12 colonies. In other words, no population of the 12 colonies was ever isolated from another as far as reproduction goes.
- As this show is a pre-history for humanity, it's safe to assume the colonials have the same tolerances for the environment as humans.
- The 12 colonies utilize FTL propulsion and sublight propulsion.
- As of the Miniseries, FTL jumps in-system are unheard of and risky. This implies that ships must jump from system to system, rather than planet to planet.
- Several of the ships depicted with FTL drives lack quarters for passengers implying that some starships are dedicated 'airline services' types capable of moving people from one star system to another quickly.
- In the miniseries, we see a large number of ships without FTL systems. They all appear to be destroyed.
- Over the course of the series we see several larger vessels with quarters and FTL drives. These ships also tend to be the ones incapable of landing planet side.
- If they were all located in one system, then the need for FTL would be made moot as they have a practical sublight propulsion.
- Using our solar system as an example, as it is a 4.5 billion year old star system, we know that planets on the same orbital path or ones that cross will eventually collide. Our moon is proof of that.
- The habitable zone of a solar system is dependent upon the size, stability and power of the star.
- At not time have we seen evidence the 12 colonies has a binary star nor has any dialog hinted at that.
- We know that the colonies maintain a large fleet of battlestars (some 120), each with FTL abilities and who knows how many support ships.
- We know that the colonies maintain operations of military and civilian concerns in other star systems.
- Gravity pulls as much as it pushes. Planets in same, near or close orbital paths would stress the other planets in the system leading some sweet collisions and a whole lot of rubble.
- Saying God did it is being lazy.

Laying all that out, I can't see any reason or logic on having a stable star system with 12 habitable worlds in it. Maybe 2 or 3 star systems near each other. Maybe 1-2 light years apart.

On a side note, A Scientific Theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory ) is an extremely highly developed explanation of how things work and among the highest order of scientific thought. We know gravity exists, yet it is only a theory. We are yet to even detect the source particles of gravity! Oh that elusive graviton!

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 23 2009, 01:31 AM

EmperorRyu, when you allege that someone's argument is fallacious as you have with my previous post, you need to identify what kind of fallacy is being committed and why, as I have done for you on numerous occasions. It's pretty clear by this point that you either don't understand what a fallacy is or you don't accept that fallacies are errors in reasoning and are thus invalid arguments. Since you apparently won't take it from me, here's the source you asked for: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

By the way, since you keep bringing up the forum rules, I should warn you that the ad hominems you keep committing are against the forum rules; the latest one being that jab about "grammar comprehension." Don't worry, I'm not offended. I know that you don't intend to commit ad hominems, but that's no excuse, and you keep doing it anyway. I usually just ignore this sort of thing, but in this case it is worthwhile to point out because it demonstrates another way that you're not exactly playing by the rules. Not even the forum rules.

Posted by: Areal Jul 23 2009, 01:35 AM

Quite the intro there azselendor. You and keith seem quite a pair LOL.
But while keith was accusing Ryu of being subtly insulting, you have kicked it up a notch, being openly insulting and rude. I might almost say antagonistic.
You must be extremely brilliant and knowledgeable and surely we should all bow to your superior intellect LOL.
However your arrogance rivals keith's and strikes me as extremely lame and IMO is probably some sort of compensation.
You guys keep on insisting on and basking in your superior brilliance. I shall continue to appreciate the possibilities that my ignorance allows me.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 23 2009, 01:41 AM

Boy that complicates things. I hope you're wrong about Aerilon and Picon; we don't have much evidence anyway. Specifically we saw a photo set on Aerilon (the man collapsing in front of burning buildings) and blue sky out of the window on Picon in Hero. This is not really conclusive evidence that these two colonies are naturally habitable, but I agree that it certainly implies this. It can be rationalized against though by saying that Picon was a domed colony with sky made to resemble blue sky like Cloud Nine and Aerilon could also be a domed colony and that photo could have been taken shortly before the man's death by suffocation due to breach of the dome.

Posted by: Azselendor Jul 23 2009, 01:45 AM

As I stated, I had no intention of being rude, I pointed out what I was seeing going on and used an anology to explain it. I frankly didn't expect such a response back from you or anyone else. I hesitate to even post or add content seeing this reply. I merely wanted to provide feedback and renew the discussion about this.

All the notes I posted came from the series itself and can be easily looked up at any number of sites that cover the series and I'm aiming to encourage debate on the topic by providing some additional points of information and trying to shift this topic back to what it is about.

How many planets can we fit into a star system

Posted by: Azselendor Jul 23 2009, 01:52 AM

Picon's sky was viewed via adm. corman's window. I admit, that's flimsy, but we have no proof it wasn't domed either.

Now Aerilon. That looks like an inferno. Now we'll need to look up how fast air can be sucked out to a vaccum and guesstimate the size and volume of a dome, but that's a really big dome as we don't see any evidence in the fire or the area locally around the soldier of decompression.

Now if this was taken shortly before his suffocation, how did the camera man survive? Well, it could've been a snapshot from a live broadcast. maybe.

I'm willing to give 3 planets of earth caliber in the system, top of 5.

Posted by: Azselendor Jul 23 2009, 02:04 AM

Looking back on the checkers vs chess post, I can see now how that can be construed as a rub in the wrong way about intelligence

I sincerely did not intend it that way, What I was trying to convey was that Kethinov is debating according to one rule set, and Ryu another and there was no consensus on it.

Aneal, I honestly didn't appreciate the harshness of your reply. I try to be a very jovial and neutral person willing to own up if I make a mistake and I do feel your response was in excess and inappropriate.


Please, let's return to the debate on the planets, there is a lot to catch up on.

Posted by: Areal Jul 23 2009, 03:37 AM

Arselendor, I honestly don't give a flying frell whether or not you appreciated my reply. You were clearly attempting to haughtily insinuate that one poster was incapable of playing on the same level as another.
Sadly both you and keith simply seem to be missing my point. This is Science Fiction. The exploration of what science cannot yet prove or disprove.
Some of us take great enjoyment in the adventure of imagining. But for some reason some folks seem to get their kicks nitpicking and criticising the few television shows that venture into the realm of sci-fi.
My response was politely worded and perfectly appropriate. At worst it was unkind. But you took a shot (however tactfully you claim it may have been, or your hindsight conciliation) at my friend.
Get over it.

Posted by: Azselendor Jul 23 2009, 06:49 AM

I'm sorry to hear you can't move past that. There was nothing in your post that was polite and your continued attacks on me is turning this thread into a flame war. As such, I will set aside all further posts from you as they see intended to bait and inflame and move on. I eagerly await Ryu's responses, however. I'm sure he will see my statements fairly and move forward with this debate as I offered a lot that supports his arguments as well as kethinov's

Now, I'm sure this is a point of order many disagree on, but I offer this as the definition of Science Fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction ( as of 7/23/2009 at 7am )

"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically-established or scientifically-postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas". Science fiction is largely based on writing entertainingly and rationally about alternate possibilities in settings that are contrary to known reality."

While it is true most writers of this genre hardly use science correctly in a story (looking at you brannon braga), SciFi is a huge platform for the public education of science and popularization of science as a whole. Junk science only confuses the public debate as a whole and distracts from its advancement.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:07 PM

None taken on my end, . . . even though I do sense a possible multi-handler in our mists, . . . but nonetheless, refreshing to see that the challenge is finally being explored through reasoning based on the show rather than the limitations of lacking imagination. You are entitled to your opinions of how this discussion is being carried onwards in here, however, your analogy is, in my opinion, not helping to carry the topic forward and quite an inaccurate assessment of the current level the debate has reached. Kethinov has indeed made the initial attempts to flame others in here. If you haven’t noticed, I invite you to review postings made by our fellow open minds, and benevolent friends (((Dione))), and (((Areal))) on page 2.

Since you found it odd that I brought up the forum rules, allow be to clarify for you, my Mansquito friend. Kethinov is stating that there exists a set of rules that are accorded to and referenced religiously for “Online Debating” that are “NOT” contained in the forums rules that have been lay down to all of it’s members by the creators, administrators, and moderators of this site. Since he has not produced a copy of his format of rules and style of debate, his argument has led him into yet another fallacy in his so-called strategy to gain a moral high ground.

For other members of this forum, please take note that on that wiki-site, online debating is marked as a style form, and that we’re all online, ergo, this is an online debate, and nothing else categorized and listed.



I added numbers to assist reading comparisons between this quoting section and my reply to it.

1. Can you please be more specific and please explain your take on the usage of “Earth-like”, so the rest of us can have a bearing on your reference in this statement. Picon was not identified in the show. That scene could’ve been at any military installation on Aerilon, Aquaria, Canceron, Caprica, Gemenon, Leonis, Libran, Sagittaron, Scorpia, Tauron, or Virgon, to be fair. It’s possible it could’ve been at Picon Fleet Headquarters, but even that doesn’t assist us to better confirm Picon. I do believe that it most likely is at Picon Fleet Headquarters, but we are unsure at this time.

2. Objection. We do not know the current location of the Ragnar Ammunition Reserve Depot Station, given the script lines between Doctor Gaius Baltar and Lieutenant Sharon “Boomer” Valerii about the mining colony of Troy, suggests that there are settlements outside of the 12 Colonies System and the F.T.L. drive technology they have.

3. Objection. Inconclusive.

4. Agreed.

5. True.

6. In my opinion, this is rhetorical, given that we’ve all seen the 12 Colonies System in the episode, “Daybreak”.

7. Yes, planetary traveling has been around in the 12 Colonies System since their arrival.

8. Agreed. It can also be suggested that they have the technology to aid them in difficult natural occurrences on each of the 12 naturally habitable planets.

9. True.

10. In the Miniseries, it was the uncertainty of an old outdated Battlestar model could still safely make an F.T.L. jump after being in service for so long. The whole “wear and tear” view on this matter. This does not apply to the rest of the Colonial Fleet though, my friend.

11. True.

12. True.

13. Objection. Inconclusive. During the Exodus of New Caprica, we see several large ships taking off the ground.

14. It is quite possible to make short distance F.T.L. Jumps. It was militarily discussed that during the First Cylon War, the Colonials had 12 Battlestars and perhaps a number of other warships. The effective defensive capabilities of the Colonials, during a Cylon offensive, would be rested on the assurances that the Colonial Fleet can F.T.L. Jump to planet to planet without losing a single ship during the jump itself to cover the entire system in time.

15. It has only been over 2,000 years that the Colonials were living in the 12 Colonies System. There is no indication, whatsoever as to when the system was even created in the first place. This statement is moot, in my opinion.

16. The habitable zone is a “theoretical” area with inconclusive findings.

17. Given the screenshot from the episode of “Daybreak”, it appears to be a single star system.

18. If we model the maximum number of ships in the U.S. Navy Carrier Group, which is roughly 20 ships, we can estimate there can be 2,400 ships. It can be considered on military terms that it is possible that there could be even more groups ships that do not include a battlestar, such as a Flotilla.

19. Agreed. Protecting the outer colonies is a must during an Armistice.

20. Since that did not happen, we must therefore conclude that it is not the case for the 12 Colonies System.

21. Objection. Bias.

I hope you are aware that “NONE” of these are grounds for dismissing the 12 Colonies System as being practical and possible. Some of them are based on F.T.L. drives that have no effective reasoning to the question initially proposed. I have to ask, “Are you Kethinov?” If not, my bad.



In the section headlining, “The term theoretical”, it states, . . .

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:10 PM

I have stated why and the type of fallacy, please, re-read my posting, so you can interpret it better. Take all the time you want to find it, my friend. No pressure whatsoever. You must understand that humanity is diverse in ways you can only imagine. Nobody is going to think “exactly” like you, nor want to be like you, because in truth, everybody has free will and the means to live it for themselves.



I can say the same thing too in the way you treated me and the others in here with your personal attacks. Even though I possess a great level of tolerance for such lame strategies in a debate, in my opinion, to achieve that altruism in a discussion, I don’t go compounding myself as some “know it all”, which you have been attempting to demonstrate in your argument that has a great many fallacies in it. You’re free to complain to the administrators and/or moderators if you like, that’s not my concern.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:11 PM

In my opinion, a funny pair, and I won’t bow to their arguments, just test them.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:15 PM

Please explain your reasoning with that conflagration in the background in that picture from such a distance from the man. Also include your predictions as to what might happen to a dome structure getting blasted by a nuclear weapon too. In my humble opinion, Aerilon is a naturally habitable planet from the start, as well as the other major planets.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:16 PM

Whatever.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:18 PM

Well, at least you’ve demonstrated the capacity to giving into the notion of failure. Be glad I’m not the type of person to have you beg for forgiveness. And as for our (((Areal))), she has every right to express her opinion, equally in measure. She did nothing wrong. She just pointed out a bunch of mistakes in your posting. Simple as that, and now you’re going to try her, and punish her for her attempts to better mitigate the situation in this discussion. This, in my opinion, is unwise. At times, it requires a third party to better evaluate the situation at hand. In my book, hurting the innocent is unacceptable.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:21 PM

*Hands over a set keys to (((Areal))) to a Viper Mark VII and saying, "You earned it, my friend."*

The word "frell" reminded me of Farscape’s Finale: The Peacekeeper Wars. That was frakkin’ frellin’ awesome of an ending for that show.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 02:31 PM

You have to look at it more dimensionally to better understand our (((Areal))). She is being honest and sincere in her postings as much as possible, and believe me, she is being very polite. She isn’t turning this thread into a flaming war. The two sides against each are the ones who are truly responsible. But in the best interests of peace, it’s best to focus on the topic in hand and try our very best not to stray too far away from it, if any progress is to be made.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” – Frederick Douglass

I can see here, we are making progress.



And yet, through the active imagination, we push forward in science because of the radical displays of science fiction, like the jet pack, computers, cellular phones, etc. Everybody should read the section headlining “Science fiction studies”.

Perhaps the best example that science fiction aided science is on September 1, 1902, in France, by a man named, Georges Méliès, in his work named "Le Voyage Dans La Lune", translated into English as "A Trip to the Moon".

"Imagination is more important than knowledge, . . ." - Albert Einstein

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 23 2009, 04:12 PM

Science can disprove twelve naturally habitable planets forming in one solar system as a possibility. I've already gone over the reasoning with you.



Anyone here can see plain as day by reviewing your posts that while you keep insisting that I'm posting fallacies, you haven't actually identified what kind of fallacy, not even once, as I've done for you repeatedly. I even did your research for you and gave you a nice list to choose from. Go click that link and find one on the list and do some matching. While you're at it, name one specific personal attack I've made since you apparently seem to think I'm committing those constantly too. That's all I'm asking for. One of each. If you can't do that, we must consider the accusations withdrawn.



I agree that that's clearly what the show is implying, but with so little visual evidence to go on, we can't rule out the more realistic possibility yet like we can with Caprica, Tauron, and Scorpia. (Thankfully.) For example, perhaps the Cylons didn't nuke Aerilon but used conventional weapons instead. Why nuke a dome when puncturing it with a regular missile is enough?

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 05:00 PM

And all I'm saying is that through science, it can prove that it is a possibility that a system can naturally create 12 habitable planets.



As I stated before, take all the time you need to see it in your postings, my friend. It's not a trick statement either. It's clearly there, and two people have pointed them out. If you cannot see them, therein lies your problem. Your perception.

For future strategies to help you later on, it's never a good idea to point falsely at things that are not fallacious in any way, you lose ground rapidly.



Exactly, with little evidence in hand, it can go either way. I remain on the positive side, because that clearly states it true within the given story lines. You can say it is unlikely, but in truth, you're demanding that the writers forgo the given story lines that supports 50+ billion people, which on average for each planet is around 4.167 billion. Earth's population is over the 6.5 billion mark. Are you implying that 9 of the 12 planets are completely covered in domes, so that in space, you see 9 solid spherical objects orbiting a sun??? I don't think so. With Cloud Nine and that botanical garden ship that was going to be destroyed, it can be well justified that they were one of a kind types of ships in space. An impacting conventional missile will immediate decompress the dome, and won't have caused that fire on the ground. One, all the debris would be immediately sucked into space. Two, if that fire was caused by an Infiltration Cylon Model trying to weaken the dome from the inside, the smoke would appear getting sucked into space and not puffy and taking it's time going up. Just who are you trying to kid here? I'm sorry to repeat this, but your arguments are filled with a great many fallacies and quite negative.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 23 2009, 05:10 PM

EmperorRyu, you and I are done having this discussion until you specifically identify one fallacy and one personal attack in my writing that you keep insisting there are so many of. If you want this discussion to continue, you will honor my request. Otherwise, you've forfeited it.

Citing Wikipedia as a source isn't really going to help your argument, Azselendor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citing_Wikipedia#A_caution_before_citing_Wikipedia

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 23 2009, 05:22 PM

You forfeited your arguments right at the start of your false campaigning of identifying fallacies and unable to maintain the topic discussion as the primary subject matter. Your stratagem to off-balance your opponent has failed miserably. If you continue on this path of deceit, you will find yourself greatly ignored in your future proposals.

As far as wikipedia or wikipedia related sites, I have more respect for a site having the ability to correct itself, than a site unable to and sink into utter oblivion of ignorance when proven wrong.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 23 2009, 06:10 PM

I would love to continue debating with you, but what point is there when you don't even have a basic comprehension of what a fallacy is? I've tried to explain it to you numerous times. I even cited an academic source, but you just ignore all that and make up whatever you want to believe. It's impossible to have a debate with someone who does that. I've already given you a very simple way to let the discussion continue. If you refuse to oblige, it's your own fault.

Posted by: GhostofLego Jul 23 2009, 06:47 PM

I have read about 2 pages of this and may have missed the answers to my questions. If so I apologize:

Before I go into my questions which I hope may make one think, I will address my assumptions about the Colonies (note the use of the capitalization) as opposed to colonies. We know there were 12 Colonies, but we also know there other colonies, as mentioned by Boomer as part of her "history" as she was programmed to remember it. The colonies were most likely domed settlements on asteroids or moons, possibly even orbiting the Colonies. As for all Colonies coming from a single planet, we have to assume this because we know from the plotlines that man came form the planet Kobol originally.

Now my questions:

How far can a spacecraft "jump" Even the raptors had this capability, so travel between systems seem possible. Who knows how far ships (in terms of this, assume something on the idea of tractor-trailers or buses) could jump.

How far has science in the Colonies progressed? Since we are talking about science-fiction, is it possible to imagine maybe that the 12 Colonies could have been placed there by the humans in such a way that all 12 could have shared the same orbit, or formed a circular set of orbits in such a way that all 12 could have been as far from the central mass (the sun) as each other but controlled in their orbits? Yes, this is an incredible use of power, but why not? We don't know how long the Colonies had existed with whatever level of technology they possessed. We never saw all 12 Colonies, so we assume that Caprica had the highest level. How do we know that one of the other Colonies didn't house the true technology? Who's to say that all 12 had the same level? Even in reality on our own planet, all countries don't have the same level of technology or engineering. Ethiopia is not as advanced as Japan, yet both are on the same planet. Let's face it, we didn't see everything.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 23 2009, 07:35 PM

The level of technology required to recalibrate orbits in that fashion would be way beyond what is depicted anywhere on BSG or Caprica. In order for that explanation to be plausible, we would have to assume that they either had the technology at one time and lost it over time (like was the case with Resurrection and Cylons) or that it was done by a third party who since vanished. Both explanations are plausible, but weak because you'd think that the Colonials and the plot itself (of Caprica in particular) would be more interested and focused on discovering how their immeasurably improbable solar system came to be. Instead it is ignored like it doesn't matter.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 24 2009, 12:47 AM

It’s a shame you must face defeat in this manner with an argument you couldn’t comprehend the “What ifs”, let alone the possibilities that it is quite plausible that a single system can create 12 natural habitable worlds. You blindly make repeated attempts to point out fallacies in my arguments where none are found, period. You were unable to distinguish the differences between reasoning and examples. I’m sorry to say to you, but you lost in this discussion. Maybe you’ll have an easier time if you concentrated on the topic in hand, instead of deviating from it.

Next, . . .

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 24 2009, 12:57 AM

I don't know why I am still getting this feeling of multi-handling again in this thread. Just weird. Anyways, . . .

In my opinion, your taking the wrong plot lines, my friend. You have to take it from the very source, which is the Miniseries to better evaluate the 12 Colonies System.

In the Miniseries, this line was given to us, . . .



In "Resistance Webisode 6", we're given this dialogue, . . .



Now there is a 1.67 billion people, on average, on each planet were nuked.

In the episode, "A Disquiet Follows My Soul", this dialogue is given to us, . . .



Military discussions ran rampant during the Miniseries as to how the Cylons would best carry out the all-out surprise attack on the 12 Colonies with minimum resistance. All sorts of tactical planning came up all over the place. The most effective strategy to date that I've read, in my opinion was the use of nuclear weapons all over the 12 Colonies System. All the weapons the Cylon had during that time in their arsenals was used. Except perhaps the use of biological weaponry, given the need for their "Farms". Infiltration tactics, sabotage, to missile barrages, up to variants of nuclear warheads, all poured into this one coordinated attack. The most devastating effect in a surprise attack is not the really the weapons, it's the exposure of complete vulnerability.

It was so effective to warrant this dialogue from the episode, "Downloaded", . . .



Now, realistically wise, it takes 20 nuclear detonations around the same time to completely push humanity near to extinction on our Earth. Now, if the planets are larger in the 12 Colonies System, the number of nuclear detonations increases.

Now imagine and ask yourself, "Which is more devastating?", . . . hearing nuclear weaponry being detonated on all 12 worlds, or hearing only 6 of the 12 worlds suffering a nuclear holocaust? Now ask yourself the same question again, only, . . . nuclear weaponry on domes, or natural habitable worlds? Why use conventional weaponry to take out domes that can be repaired and patched up by any remaining Colonial military or refugee, when it's more easier to board their ships in space? Wouldn't it be more productive for the Cylons to create farms on all 12 natural habitable worlds, instead of 6? Also, why expose the Cylon's flanks to the enemy on planetary positions?

In my opinion, the picture of the 12 Colonies System in the episode, "Daybreak", is the visual answer to the orbiting positioning of their sun. All of them are naturally born habitable planets to give off such shiny, natural habitable atmospheres.

Here is the picture again from page 1, . . .

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 24 2009, 01:46 AM

I know I said I'd stop cataloging your factual errors for the time being, but I can't resist making an exception for this one. That's a picture of the milky way, not the solar system of the twelve colonies.



You still haven't looked up and comprehended what a fallacy is. At this point, I can only assume your ignorance is willful or you have some sort of reading comprehension problem. What can I do to help you understand what a fallacy actually means? I'm at a loss here on how else to explain it and I don't want you to keep being misinformed.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 24 2009, 01:53 AM

ROFLMAO!!! Did you even watch the episode, "Daybreak, Part 1"??? Wonders never cease to surprise me.



Your arguments in this (strike that, "Your defeated arguments".), is sadly falling onto ignore, my friend. Just move on already. It's okay that you lost. At least you walk away learning new things from it.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 24 2009, 02:52 AM

Man...

It was bad enough that you refused to comprehend what a fallacy is, but the fact that you think that picture is of a solar system and not a galaxy... well that just takes the cake. Aside from that, I'm just speechless. I don't know what else to say to you.

Posted by: Candyone Jul 24 2009, 11:50 AM

Yup...I should probably keep my mouth shut.

This thread has turned predatory and redundant....it has all happened before and will happen again.

If I was a mod or an admin. I would lock it. It isn't against freedom of written word and opinions. It is about something that is at the very least...a smiling, parasite.

Nothing worse then something that tries to destroy with a smile.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 24 2009, 02:19 PM

By the frakkin' Gods, . . .

Let's take a look at this, shall we, . . .



See the difference? I hope you're not implying that the galaxy somehow changes appearances between the end of Season 3 and the end of Season 4.

Posted by: Areal Jul 25 2009, 03:58 AM

Sorry for my tardy reply here, but I've been a bit busy.
Keithinov, how can you possibly prove that there absolutely cannot be a star system that incorporates twelve human habitable planets? Can you say that you know everything about all stars, all planetary systems?
Your quotes have little value to me because you stress such absolutes. Then you go on to say that, well mabey it's not impossible but it is so improbable that you resent the implication of the possibility. Yep, that's arrogance IMO. Then you go on to make an analogy "the kids stop eating thing" then when I point out the obvious flaw in that analogy you cop out with "well you just should have assumed....". Pure dren. I am supposed to imagine what you don't say.
"It should be obvious that being fed using any means is covered by my analogy". Following that logic it should be obvious that somewhere in the universe there is a star system with twelve human habitable planets simply because it has been imagined and it cannot be ruled out.
You also said that one doesn't need to perform experiments to come to the conclusions that a star system including twelve human habitable planets is impossible. Then you questioned why I found you arrogant because you stated a fact. What fact? You stated an opinion, and a narrow minded one IMO. And you wonder why I consider you arrogant?
I suppose you may have some sort of disability or special circumstance, aspergers syndrome mabey? No shame in that. High intelligence but difficulty in social areas.
Arselendor, I am rather confused as to why you claim to not have expected a response to your insulting chess/checkers analogy. And please don't play the frightened, wounded shy card "I hesitate to even post or add content seeing this reply". Oh please, what are you, a thirteen year old girl who slings stones and insults then runs to the teacher when somebody talks back?
Get a grip, both of you.

Posted by: Kethinov Jul 25 2009, 07:02 AM

Areal, did you even see EmperorRyu's last post? He thinks that picture of a galaxy is a picture of a solar system and you're still buying his reasoning on matters pertaining to astrophysics! That is astounding.

Anyway, I guess I'll try to demonstrate to you the absurdity of that reasoning another way since you've decided to change the meaning of my not-feeding-kids analogy to suit your own purposes.

By that reasoning, we haven't "ruled out" that there's a solar system 30 billion light years away with fifteen planets each populated by a different breed of pink unicorns. On each of these planets there is a special breed of flying pig. Each planet orbits in zig-zag fashion. When you plot the orbits, they look like smiley faces.

By that reasoning, we haven't "ruled out" that everything we've seen on BSG and Caprica is real and has actually happened. Oh, Stargate too.

By that reasoning, we haven't "ruled out" that we're all figments of Ron Moore's imagination.

The odds of all of those ridiculous things being true are about the same as the odds of twelve habitable planets forming in one solar system. That is why it is reasonable for me to "resent the implication of the possibility."

Nice ad hominem. Sure, there are others I could point out, but this one's my favorite.

Posted by: EmperorRyu Jul 25 2009, 07:01 PM

You can’t be serious about this? Is it possible that you were unable to follow the sequence of imageries at the end of the episode, “Crossroads, Part 2”, of Season 3, and the beginning of the episode, “Daybreak, Part 1, of Season 4.5? *shakes my head negatively in disbelief*

Ever recall this dialogue from the episode, “Daybreak, Part 2”, . . .



And given that the farthest star ever seen on record is 25 billion light years away, we can safely assume a great many possibilities here.

Now, this imagery is flipped over and zoomed in to see our Earth, henceforth, this is our “Galaxy”, the Milky Way Galaxy, which contains a possible 400 billion systems or more, in it.



Now, this picture, without any labeling of any kind, could be a galaxy or a solar system.



Why I choose it to be a solar system is because of the story lines along with the interviews about the location of the 12 Colonies during that time period, and the given possibilities of “What if” on the grounds that we can see our planets as stars in our own night sky. You posted earlier that this picture is the Milky Way Galaxy, when the next sequence of imagery shows up viewing the planet "Caprica", not Earth. Your perception is so blown way out of proportion and so terribly wrong here. Why can’t the blue one, near the center top, be Caprica?

Here is a better proposal, why don't you explain to us why this picture is of a galaxy more than a solar system? Instead of displaying your tantrums to others in here.



It's more like your absurdity, not ours. Your perception is the key problem you are clearly having here to understand what others are trying to say. You seem to lack the courage to face the challenges that exist in the realm of "What ifs" to better balance your convictions in your studies. This sort of reminds of that scene from the movie, "Independence Day", where Albert Nimzicki is giving out excuses left and right on how the counterattack is not going to work against the aliens.



Ah, so you're in here to learn how to argue with others, instead of getting along in a discussion. Interesting.