MovieChat Forums > The Orville (2017) Discussion > The Troubling Physics of Xelaya

The Troubling Physics of Xelaya

posted 5 years ago by AmeriGirl26 (12415)
26 replies | jump to latest

I finally found out how to spell it from the Orville Wiki.

On the one hand, it's a gorgeous planet that reminds one of earth, if not for the ring system and the strong gravity, but there are some things about it that make no sense to me.

I remember learning theories from scientists about what a high-gravity world would be like, particularly if it wasn't a gas giant. For one thing, if humanoids and animals lived on it, they would not be tall and slender. If anything, they would be squat and stocky, and extremely muscular. (The super-strong part is the only thing they really got right).

So that begs the question as to why the Xelayans are of average height and slender (most of the time). Even the animals are puzzling, particularly the "bird-horse" creature Alara's sister was petting. (I did like the design, by the way). It also puzzles me as to how they can make buildings that are tall, graceful, and delicate-looking, particularly that monorail and its tracks. You would think that such buildings would be lower to the ground and more squat in such gravity.

I also don't understand why Ed needed a full-on helmet, when he could have easily breathed the air or just had a mini-gravity shield for the front part. It's pretty obvious Xelaya has an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. And speaking of which, with such high gravity, wouldn't the atmosphere be thicker? You'd think Alara would get faint from the thinner air on the Orville and [supposedly] the Union military academy she probably trained at.

Years ago, my family went to the Planetarium in Chicago and watched a CGI cartoon film about visiting other worlds. They showed a [theoretical] high-gravity world where there were almost no mountains, and there were these huge, starfish-like creatures that moved along the ground.

Larry Niven also wrote about a high-gravity world in some of his short stories, called Jinx. Humans who colonized it ended up with descendants who were very short, stocky, and super-strong. Anybody [who wasn't a native] who visited had to either wear a special exo-skeleton, or ride around in a hover-chair (similar to Alara).

So a few things don't make much sense to me about Alara's home planet.

[–] NukeDude (585) 5 years ago

It's science fiction.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

because no one would watch it if the women looked like Bortus

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

As you say they're all theories, basically they'd be squat if the bone density was the same as ours to sustain them. For one look to Earth and size of sauropods -- their bone structure was not that wildly different, nor were their proportions that alien. They had the benefit of the same strength-to-weight ratio materials that we do, they were just bigger.

What you're saying is but one theory, there are others that doubt those theories as well, for instance

http://www.xenology.info/Xeno/11.2.1.htm

The concept of the small, squat, muscular high-gravity beasts and the tall, wiry, frail low-gravity beasts has been tediously reiterated by generations of writers.

There are good reasons to doubt such simple conclusions.

On the heaviest of all reasonable terrestrial worlds, animals such as walruses, small elephants, and even 70 kg humanoids are not excluded. On massive, 2.2-gee planets, all animals the size of hippos or smaller will certainly be possible with a modicum of redesign -- no need to call for powerfully built, squat creatures. There is no reason why such relatively minor alterations in surface gravity should drastically affect the allowable sizes of typical alien animals.

Consider the form of man. A typical human femur -- the most perfectly cylindrical and the largest single bone in our bodies (found in the thigh) -- is perhaps 3.5 cm in diameter. From the bone radius ~ g1/2 relation noted above, we find that the femur should increase to 5.2 cm on a 2.2-gee world, or fall to 1.4 cm on a 0.16-gee world, to provide equivalent support for a 70 kg human body mass.

Such changes would probably necessitate major alterations in bone distribution, structural stress loading, and internal organ design. Experiments have shown that animals reared in high gravity environments tend to grow slightly thicker than normal bones, stronger hearts, and to lose fat.

N.B: There is a whole lot more to read in there however word count constraints mean I can't put all in and that is the crux of it. There is also this on the same theory just written a tad differently (same site though): http://www.xenology.info/Papers/ETZoology1981.htm

In short people and animals like on Xelaya can exist by this theory based on math, they would just have denser bone structures, as was pointed out with Alara who not being on her home planet had been losing bone density and strength. The assumption is also that the materials on those planets would be the same as ours, what if because of the differences of those planets to ours there iron ore is of a stronger more dense variety to ours as well. So as the steel that is produced from it is also stronger or those people made it stronger because their science is different and that is why buildings and mono-rails can be as they are.

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

This show is really bad at science. Pretty much everything about Mochlans and other aliens is nonsensical. I wish they would hire a scientist to advise the writers. I mean they could at least make up stuff that's vaguely plausible.

[–] jonasnz1 (3) 5 years ago

As a life long Trek lover, sometimes you have to stop overthinking things..
This is made for fun, not to educate future physics majors.

Relax, let logic drift, and enjoy the show.

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

It's not over thinking, it's just thinking, and I can't stop doing that anymore than I could stop breathing.

[–] strntz (10905) 5 years ago

The most accurate thing we can say about scientists is that they don't know squat.

Most things we know about the universe today are incomplete at best and most likely are just wrong. If we had real scientists and physicists write sci-fi, future generations will still laugh at the implausibility of the shows.

Best thing to do is to indeed stop thinking about the "incorrect" science of today's sci-fi (they may actually prove someday to be right!) and just enjoy the show. I know you can do that.

[–] Ldlamb (589) 5 years ago

All I want are interesting and sometimes funny stories.....I couldn’t care less about this “realism” stuff.

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Intuitively you understand certain things about the world, gravity, light, acceleration, and you expect fiction to reflect your understanding unless it's explained to be otherwise. If someone is hiding behind a clear glass window and bad guys can't see them, that wouldn't make sense because that isn't how windows (physics) work and you would think the show has made an error or is just stupid. So "realism" stuff is more important than you might think.

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 5 years ago

Imagine all minerals, and materials on Xelaya are simply more dense, and so much stronger. This one line explains your wonder.

And this is also supported by what Dr. Claire Finn tells Alara in the beginning. She says that her bone density has decreased.

Problem solved.

Now, as to why he wore a helmet, I propose three reasons:
1: To avoid material from this world entering his helmet. Imagine a super dense heavy fly land on his nose, or just random dust. No thanks.
2: His helmet shield seemed to me to be like the gravity shield around their ship. So perhaps it was just s shield ensuring same gravity on his face. Makes sense.
3: If Air molecules are denser (they may not be) he needs oxygen support.

3a: Imagine these air molecules to be denser however not incompatible with earth's and so Alara and her kin just need time to adjust, which is why she needs no helmet. A bit like, when we humans climb mountains. The air there are less dense, and it causes a need for adjusting. But, it can be trained.

3c: Again, perhaps Xelayan with their powerful lungs can easily breathe both Xelaya air and Earth Air. But humans with our weak lungs, cannot. Therefore we need helmets, and they do not.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

That doesn't make sense at all.

If you're in a high-gravity planet, the cost of 'carrying' each kg (mass) is higher, since gravity is higher. Going denser means you would obtain the same benefit (strength) than going denser in a lower-gravity planet, but the cost would be several times higher. Actually, the solution would be going lighter.

But that would decrease strength instead of increasing it.

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 5 years ago

There is a limit to how high we can build, and this limit is determined mainly with how structurally strong we can construct. If our materials are stronger, we can build higher. Of course, a weather balloon is more cost efficient because it is light and surely gets very high... but if we want structures to live in, we have to look for materials that is higher in strengths.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Actually, if you want higher structures, you must go lighter. Modern skyscrapers are far lighter (per cubic meter) than old ones.

[–] Jamfo (408) 5 years ago

You’re both correct, actually. The “Holy Grail” of materials sciences is to find new metals that are both strong and dense while maintaining lightness. If you could have a metal as strong as steel, dense as lead, and weighing as much as a sheet of aluminum foil, you could make incredible structures, from intricate skyscrapers to near-indestructible aircraft that is light as a feather.

Just think of the advances we’ve made in materials over just the past 50 years. I would think that, by the time our technology is at the level of “The Orville,” that there will be some pretty outrageous new building materials out there!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yep and if you look back to Jan of 2017, they had a break through that may very well change things going forward:

http://news.mit.edu/2017/3-d-graphene-strongest-lightest-materials-0106

A team of researchers at MIT has designed one of the strongest lightweight materials known, by compressing and fusing flakes of graphene, a two-dimensional form of carbon. The new material, a sponge-like configuration with a density of just 5 percent, can have a strength 10 times that of steel.

In its two-dimensional form, graphene is thought to be the strongest of all known materials. But researchers until now have had a hard time translating that two-dimensional strength into useful three-dimensional materials.

The new findings show that the crucial aspect of the new 3-D forms has more to do with their unusual geometrical configuration than with the material itself, which suggests that similar strong, lightweight materials could be made from a variety of materials by creating similar geometric features.

The same geometry could even be applied to large-scale structural materials, they suggest. For example, concrete for a structure such as a bridge might be made with this porous geometry, providing comparable strength with a fraction of the weight. This approach would have the additional benefit of providing good insulation because of the large amount of enclosed airspace within it.

and etc., at link.

Could wake up in the morning and they've cracked the way to do it and everything we know will be changed, similar to battery technology, we're one break through away from a huge change. Just like prior to June 29th 2007 and the first iPhone, people would have laughed at you if you told them that we'd be walking around with a personal computer in our pocket that was more powerful than a desktop/laptop of then.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Well, I hope they take it slow.

One BIG problem with materials in construction is life expentancy. Buildings and infrastructures are supposed to last decades, if not centuries.

We had lots of new materials in the past decades. Not all of them are doing well after a while. And there isn't any reliable way to simulate 'time' in a laboratory. You can measure some time associated variables, like fatigue. You can (sometimes) measure cycles depending variables (I don't see how you could measure accurately water-immersion cycles through time in pillars, for example). But in general, how new materials will evolve in time is an unknown property.

(Not sure the terms are correct, I'm trying to translate to English, but they may be wrong)

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's a good point, look at that super light Reynobond PE cladding they used on the Grenfell tower in the UK when they renovated it, between that and the lighter uPVC windows it was a fire disaster waiting to happen and did.

To which we have a huge problem here in Australia with the same cladding: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/australian-high-rises-swathed-in-flammable-cladding/8862784

We also we have a huge problem with concrete high rises because the concrete has re bar in it and of course as the concrete over time has absorbed water the re bar has started to rust and expand. Concrete then gets displaced and more water gets in and the steel rusts more and on it goes (concrete cancer). Basically high rises built in the 1970’s are said to have an average lifespan of around 40 years and here we are in 2019 and it's staring to show and they were getting built right up to the 90's.

Started to show up in 2015: https://www.fmgengineering.com.au/blog/2015/04/14/victorian-concrete-cancer-warning-a-time-bomb-going-undetected-in-hundreds-of-victorian-properties/

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Density and light weight are opposites for practical purposes. You want something strong/tough, rigid, lightweight, yet cost effective.

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 5 years ago

Obviously, our materials are not strong enough to build pyramids upside down. We have to go lighter as we rise.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Yeap, that's a big no-no in modern series. They keep trying to make women strong and hot at the same time, and that's like fitting a round peg in a square hole. You see women punching like they were Schwartzenegger all around in movies and series. Truth is that this would require from them to be extremely muscled, kind of those body building women (or even more). But that's not hot.

Here, they give some (cough cough) 'explanation'. But it comes to the same: hot slim chick that punches like a body builder.

The Orville is a good series, way better than Star Trek Discovery, but they can't avoid that modern trend. In defense of it, I'd say that Orville is still better than most of modern series.

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Orville is very much a slave to Hollywood faux liberalism, the worst episodes are built around it.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

And still, it's far better than STD.

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Everything is

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Ahem... Supergirl... :P

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

I never got past the teasers, just assumed it would suck and get cancelled.

[–] maximmm (3083) 5 years ago

This show is a spoof of ST - so where ST gets some stuff wrong, this show is off the rails on the whole other level - more like star wars than ST in terms of science.

Furthermore, it's kind of obvious that this show is aiming more at making a social statement than anything else. Super strong women, weak men (SJW), gay story-lines, etc, etc.