Talk:Cyrannus/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Cyrannus/Archive 1
No edit summary
Line 181: Line 181:
How about this?[[User:JosephK19|JosephK19]] 02:55, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
How about this?[[User:JosephK19|JosephK19]] 02:55, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

[[Image:Battlestar system.png]]
[[Image:Battlestar system.png|400px]]
:That's a nice concept. I may add it to the main article as one plausible concept based on what we know in science and concept. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:22, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 12:22, 23 October 2006

I moved this to the discussion page, because I have some questions about the validity of this part of text:

Hey, My name Is Lane
Me And My Dad Came Up With A Way This Could Work.
You See IT IS POSSIBLE To Have 3 ORBITS Within A "Life-Zone" According To Everything We Are Coming Up With There Could Be Up To 4 Planets In 1 Orbit So Therefore You Could Have 12 Planets In The Orbits Of What Would Be Say VENUS,EARTH, And MARS

This sounds slightly plausable, though I have my doubts as to how 12 planets could be crammed in the orbits of Earth, Venus and Mars without adversely affecting each other with their gravimetric mass...

Though here's my primary issue...

My issue is that no actual link to a paper or entry on the Internet (or Wikipedia for that matter) is provided in support of this assertion.

To be honest, I also have an issue with how this is written. I'm not in the business of being a card holding member of the Grammar Nitpicking committee, since I am also imperfect on many levels, however this sticks out like a sore thumb when I read over the rest of the entry. It just doesn't fit...

So, until someone can provide me with some sort of technical / scientific paper on this, I'm not willing to include this above content, in any way, shape or form.

--Joe Beaudoin 23:34, 26 Feb 2005 (EST)

Joe, never accept this. A 12 year old would be able to tell you that such a concept is ridiculous. Also how do you define a lifezone? It can't be done! Jxh487 17:14, 21 August 2006 (CDT)jxh487

    • Why is everyone speculating that the home system of the 12 Colonies had to have more than one star?! They've never said anything like that. Why is it so hard to believe that they just happen to have 12 inhabitable planets in one solar system? Ron D. Moore has STATED in his blog that they are in one system, and that they are ALL inhabitable (whether they were FOUND like that or terraformed I'm not sure). What's the point of contention here? ---Ricimer, October 5, 2005
It's scientifically implausible to cram twelve planets into the habitabe zone of a single star. Three would be pushing it. Making the Colonial's home system a binary star obviates the need to suggest terafforming capabilities belied by the colonials' otherwise low-tech abilities. --Peter Farago 12:18, 5 October 2005 (EDT)
Not everything in BSG is or will be scientifically accurate, just plausible. The Colonies and their arrangement is a holdback from the original series, so this is a 30+ year argument that still has no answer. At least RDM has practically acknowledged that this isn't the cleanest scientific possibility. I'm for the binary or trinary system configuration. It may also be possible for some of Colonies to be inhabitable Earth-sized satellites of another planet in a double-planet configuration. We can make up anything to fit them into a large solar system, really, based on what we do know about astronomy. But mind you, the Colonials have FTL travel, we don't. Ficticious as they are, they may know more about certain aspects of their worlds they we can presume until presented the subject in a show. Spencerian 16:23, 5 October 2005 (EDT)

On the Goldilocks Zone, and the 'n'-body Problem[edit]

I agree with Peter Farago, for once. Information on other Wiki sources, like the one on the Goldilocks Zone of a star, clearly say that there is a very small region about any particular star, depending on that star's size, heat, type, etc. in which an Earth-like planet may retain open bodies of water, and hence life. However, there is no guarantee that the process of planet formation will produce even one significant body of mass within the hypothetical zone about any particular star. The fact of the matter is that the planetary system about which we know the most (our own) has produced at best only two or three planets within this Goldilocks Zone, of which only one (guess which) has produced and sustained life as we know it. However, the definition of a planet is ambiguous at best, I believe a more accurate interpretation of the likelihood that any body will form in the Goldilocks Zone can be obtained from an analysis of the distribution of mass in our Solar Sytem. Looking at our system from the distribution of mass, it is painfully clear that only a very small portion of the available material of our planetary system during its incipient stages coalesced into planets anywhere near the habitable zone of the sun. It is not at all certain that any material in some other planetary system would coalesce in a similar pattern. Those who are interested in this topic should look up Rare Earth by Peter Ward. In anycase, the Goldilocks Zone is really ancillary to the topic at hand.
What is really confusing people here, I think, is the concept of the n-body problem. I'm no expert on this (far from it), but basically two planet-sized objects will not be able to maintain themselves for very long if they occupy a single orbit about a star - eventually the gravitational interactions between the two planets and the planets and the sun will destabilize one or both of the planets. An exception to this rule is embodied in the concept of the Lagrange Point (also called the restricted three-body problem), which hinges on the condition that one of these three hypothetical bodies has negligent mass (and therefore negligent gravity). The Lagrange points should be familiar to fans of the Gundam anime series; the five colonies occupy the five "stable" Lagrange points.
This is why, whenever you hear on the news about some large asteroid which might pass near the Earth in forty years or something - it's not possible to predict the orbits of any body in the universe with absolute certainty. This isn't due to imperfect information, it's simply a mathematical fact. This doesn't mean that our estimation of these orbits can't be very good - this is what astronomers are paid to do. But there is always some mathematical error in these estimations.
So why am I blabbering on about the n-body problem? Because large, inert bodies of mass (read, habitable planets) which can not correct their orbits continuously to maintain some exotic orbit will eventually destabilize due to the gravitational disturbances which are the natural result of the n-body problem. Peter Ward is doubtful that even a single planet might form in the very restricted Goldilocks Zone about any particular star; but two, three, twelve? Read up on the formation of our own large moon, which was apparently formed from a tremendous impact between our planet and another Mars-sized object which was occupying the same orbit for hundreds of millions of years, until they destabilized and collided.
The Twelve Colonies are certainly situated in stable orbits about twelve separate stars, with no other significant bodies of mass within or anywhere near their orbit. As to the arrangement of these stars, I'll leave that for another day.
Jzanjani 17:04, 5 October 2005 (EDT)
I agree with Peter Farago, for once. oh, come on, we have one fight and suddenly we're worst enemies? I don't resent your work here, and I hope you don't resent mine. Good things come out of discussion. --Peter Farago 17:46, 5 October 2005 (EDT)


However, the revelations presented in The Raid make it clear that the Twelve Colonies are not located in a single star system; in fact, each individual colony is situated in a separate Zodiacal constellation, as viewed from Earth. This would place the Colonies many light-years apart.

A more realistic explanation of the importance of Cyrannus in the mythology of the reimagined series may be that it was the original destination of the Twelve Tribes, perhaps a single star system predesignated as the future home of humanity. Presumably, some later event prevented the Tribes from reaching Cyrannus, causing the subsequent diaspora. However the issue of the early history of the Colonies is still under debate and considerably murky (see the Three Exodi Interpretation of the Sacred Scrolls).

This is completely innacurate. The thirteenth tribe identified star patterns and matched them to the symbols of the twelve colonies; the colonies were not located in the constellations themselves. Otherwise earth would be directly in the center of them, its location not remotely mysterious, and it would actually take longer to travel from one colony to another than from one colony to earth. --Peter Farago 02:18, 5 October 2005 (EDT)

A further strike against this edit is that the Colonies had many sub-light ships as shown in the mini-series. They had sufficient speed to gather with Roslin's rescue fleet over the few hours as Boomer (in an FTL-capable Raptor) or other ships located them, suggesting the distances (and number of ships) were small. For the Colonies to be as separated as suggested in that edit would make sub-light travel impossible since each colony would be too distant. Such travel would take months or years, instead of days or a couple of weeks. This is also presuming that only the space surrounding Caprica was searched, but space is BIG and time would still be a factor in a sub-light ship. Based on an earlier script of the mini-series, RDM considered the idea of making a single planet, Kobol, the home for all Colonies that would behave more as sovereign states like the U.S. When that idea didn't fit into the plan, RDM decided to go back to the TOS concept of separate planets in a single system. This is highly improbable to have so many inhabitable planets in such a fashion, astronomically, but it was one detail that the writers (and viewers) had to take as given (not that they would be much left of the Colonies to argue about this, anyway). Spencerian 16:14, 5 October 2005 (EDT)

Merged Content and Other Changes[edit]

I merged the two relatively identical articles for Cyrannus into a single article and deleted unfounded speculation on its use in the RDM continuity as there is NO aired or deleted scene content I have found that uses the name to describe the solar system in the RDM continuity. The term has been used in the 2003 Video Game and the Original Series (albeit confusingly). Double redirects have been corrected. --Spencerian 09:53, 19 January 2006 (EST)

Factuality of "New" Planet Definitions[edit]

A recent edit from Troyian has added the recent adjustments in planetary definitions that, I think, might have been defined or under consideration by the IAU. Despite this data, the world of BSG is NOT necessarily the Milky Way we exist in. Contributors normally draw comparisons and contrasts to our actual galaxy as well as the fictional universe of Galactica. While the scientist's definitions may be relevant to our galaxy, they may not work well here for one sourced reason: At the miniseries conclusion, Elosha tells the assembly that the Lords of Kobol led the Twelve Tribes to the "12 worlds" that would form the Colonies. Not "planetoids," "minor planets," or other stuff. While it is probable that not all of them are 100% Earthlike, all must be sufficiently habitable and resource-rich, and around 1 to 1.5 G. Otherwise, the colonial wars noted in back-history before the Articles of Colonization would make little sense, nor would many other socialogical and technical notes. For the most part, it seemed that these wars may have been stalemated or easily overmatched. The scientist's notes just don't fit with BSGs mentality or the peoples shown, who apparently don't have to adjust dramatically to major changes in climate (based on what we have seen). Comments? --Spencerian 16:59, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Adding 3 new planets to the current 9: Ceres, Charon, and Xena, to make 12 is irrelevant. While the debate over "well were these "planets" Earth-like or some other definition of a "planet"?" is affected, it's not like "wow, there's 12 planets in the solar system now, maybe we're the 12 Colonies": You can't physically stand on Jupiter or Saturn or another gas giant. Ganymede, Europa, and Titan are far more like "Planets" in that respect, in which case there would easily be more.--The Merovingian (C - E) 17:41, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
The latest update is that we may be down to eight planets. The IAU meeting has been very interesting. --FrankieG 19:14, 22 August 2006 (CDT)


I've added several {{citation needed}} entries to the article. I just wanted to comment that Wikipedia:Alpha Centauri is similarly adorned, and Wikipedia:Beta Centauri contradicts the distance given here. As such, I would like to emphasize that, per BW:CJ, Wikipedia per se is not a valid source. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 02:55, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

...Three points:

1) Cite link to press release re: the formation & size limit for moons of gas giants is now added. Should have added that right off the bat, but the link I had wasn't working. I've added a different link that does work, although it's not the one that was originally on the SWRT site. Don't know where that one went to

2) In some cases, Wikipedia entries *are* valid sources. In this case, the entries for the Centauri stars matches what's being taught in the schools these days, and some of the contributors are professional and amateur astronomers with valid reputations.

3) WRT the B Centauri distance "discrepancy", add ~5 LY to the figure I posted in the entry here, and remember that the A Centauri pair and B Centauri are on a near LOS between B Cenauri and Sol, and that the pair is ~5 LY away from Sol. Simple math.

...Not that I really want to get into an argument over this, but sorry kids, but I don't subscribe to the "If it's on Wikipedia, it's automatically a big fat lie" dogma. If that were true, everything on *this* Wiki would be a "big fat lie" as well. As it is, you've let this bias and distrust overwhelm your need for cites. At the rate you're going, you'll be asking for a cite for every single letter and punctuation mark used :-P

I mean, seriously - Proxima's been known to be a Red Dwarf since even *I* was born. Asking for a cite for that is like asking for a cite that we have a Moon in the sky, and water is wet...

--OM 03:54, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

...I've added cites to this section, although I'm convinced that some of these cite demands were a bit of overkill. Some cite demands were removed as previous cites rendered those redundant. One or two cite demands were not rational, IMHO, and were removed.

(1) That is excellent.
(2) Wikipedia is valid where it cites sources, per BW:CJ, but not where it is coated in citation requests. As far as I recall, I didn't even help make that policy. I find the whole "sorry kids" thing mildly offensive, and I think you are intentionally confusing "On Wikipedia does not imply true." with "On Wikipedia implies false." to provide a straw man.
(3) Adding 5 randomly is not something I would consider "[s]imple math." For that matter, adding another 5 to account for A Centauri doesn't make sense, as it reads 'Beta Centauri, although visibly "closer" to Alpha A and B, is actually some 520 light years distant' not '520 light years more distant.' For that matter, Wikipedia says both "approximately 525" and "530±50." Forgive me, but that error bound seems excessively large to even bother specifying a second significant digit, much less a third.
(Un-numbered comments on the citation requests being excessive) I didn't know off-hand that Proxima is a Red Dwarf. As I am reasonably well-educated, I generally consider anything I don't know not to be general knowledge. If it is not general knowledge, it needs a citation.
I do now see that the citation requests on "...astronomers are now divided..." was redundant with requesting cites on both divisions. I also think that the "...Yavin..." sentence was more irrelevant than in need of citation.
I would note that I am delighted you took the time to completely source your large and clearly well-informed contribution. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 15:23, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

In order:

1) Yippee.

2) I honestly don't see a difference between the two. Granted, Wikipedia's gotten a lot of flack lately because of one corrupt politician having his entry updated to put a more positive spin on his abyssmal career - why Ted Kennedy hasn't done this yet escapes me - but as a result now every single article is suspect even if it has cites on it. CIP: one particular Wiki entry I referred to on another forum two years ago was viciously torn to shreds by two enthusiasts of the subject, claiming that all the cites were invalid because they linked to sites - gah, that sounds phonetically redundant - that were built and maintained by web authors who weren't "paid professionals" and/or "people who actually knew the guy". When pointed out that two of those used as cites were *relatives* of the person in question, those same two dips attempted to invalidate those cites on the grounds that the relations had a "falling out". I don't have time to play "Argument Clinic", which is why I've adopted the policy to treat Wikipedia as I'd treat Brittanica or World Book; as long as it passes Occam's Razor and at least sounds plausible, then I'll use it as a cite until I see concrete proof that it's wrong.

3) Tell you what, since you're the one dealing with semantics, I'll let you tweak that one as you see fit. The distance from Sol to B Centauri is ~525 LY according to aol sources I've found on the web save one, and that one entry was that one Wiki cite that has the +/-50 LY. I'll go with the majority here, and if you subtract ~5 LY from 525, you get 520. Again, I'll let you tweak the wording here as you see fit, and we'll go from there. Be advised that I'm not really interested in getting into a big war on this. Just keep the results accurate and it should work out.

4) I honestly learned that Proxima is a Red Dwarf in the 3rd grade, which was ~1970. My middle brother is a science teacher, and he verified this evening that his current series of authorized lecture notes - compiled from various textbooks - contains mention of the Centauri "trinary", and while still claiming that the system is a graviometrically linked trinary, they note specifically that Proxima is, you guessed it, a Red Dwarf.

To make matters more against your favor, I've personally called three strippers I know, and they not only knew that Proxima was a Red Dwarf, but so did their worthless boyfriends. And yea, one of them is an amateur astronomer who's more in love with his Celestron, but that's a different story altogether...:-P

5) I didn't see the "Yavin" mention as being irrelevant at all. The argument presented earlier in the entry called for habitable planets around gas giants. The most notable one seen on film has been, of course, Yavin IV. Unless the Yavin gas giant is about 6-7 times Jupiter mass, according to this theory Yavin IV can't be as habitable as we're led to believe in the film.

...In any case, this might be a lesson to you "Jihadists" that it's possible to be overzealous in your quest for accuracy. ISTR an old fable about a sculptor who kept chisling away at a piece of rare, expensive marble, looking for the true image hidden within, but because he didn't like any of the images he found, kept chisling until there wasn't anything left of his expensive marble.

(2) If you want Wikipedia considered a valid source here, then bring it up on BW:CJ's talk page. I don't even know immediately how I would weigh in on the issue.
(3) I suppose 525 is correct, then.
(4) I'm sure that at several points I knew that particular tidbit. My three most conveniently located collegiate friends didn't know it, but our anecdotal evidence is not particularly germane; it's just not something everyone immediately knows. Very many people know what a P90 looks like, but information about it is still linked from KEW. That way, others can readily personally verify the episode citation visually.
(5) I don't see how mention of something similar in a different fictional universe is relevant to this particular article. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 22:02, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
Actually, ~525 is more accurate, and from what I've been able to gather due to the narrow parallax involved thanks to both Centauri systems being so visibly "adjacent", adding a +/-5 between "525" and "LY" could give the figure a little fudge room. If my sources at JPL are correct, when the Webb platform goes up in a few years, it should be able to get a bit more accuracy on this figure.


what if some of the colones are moons? I'll do a text map m=moon p=planet mp=mier planet.

||||| sun ||||||||||||| | habeltibel zone | |||| sun ||||||||||||| | | ||| sun ||||||||| | | || sun ||||||| | | | sun || | m | sun | ppp |

                                     |  ppppp       |
                                    |    ppp m     |
                                   |    m         |
                                  |              |
                                 |              |
                                |              |
                               |              | 
                              |              |
                             |    ppp       |
                            |    ppppp     |
                           |      ppp     |
                          |              |
                         |              |
                        |              |
                       |              |
                      |              |
                     |              |
                    |              |
                   |       m      |
                  |     p        |
                 | m ppppppp m  |
                | m ppppppppp  |
               |     ppppppp  |
              |     m   p    |
             |              |
            |              |
           |              |
          |              |
         |     mp       |
        |              |
       |              |
      |              |
     |              |
    | habeltibelzone |

It Did'nt work righ if you can fix it go ahead

Or some ting like that.JosephK19 07:47, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

Hi, Joseph. It's entirely possible (and probable, from an astrophysical point of view) that the Colonies were a mix of habitable moons and planets in the Re-imagined Series. What little information we've been given about the wars between the Colonies prior to the Cylon War suggests big resource differences between colonies, where fighting caused strife until the Articles of Colonization and the war. We just don't truthfully know: Ron D. Moore hasn't elaborated further, and we limit our guesses here to what has been given. As far as the Original Series, well, it had serious technical issues, and we'll never really know there. You did a nice job on your map; if possible, I'll see if it can be recreated in the main article to go with the topic. --Spencerian 08:32, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

How about this?JosephK19 02:55, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar system.png

That's a nice concept. I may add it to the main article as one plausible concept based on what we know in science and concept. --Spencerian 07:22, 23 October 2006 (CDT)