Movies are dumbing down science, along with everything else

In one of the least surprising bits of advice ever, college professors at the University of Central Florida are suggesting that you don't take physics lessons from Hollywood.<BR><BR>Read More

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Superman... uh, gets lots of stuff wrong: The authors, in describing a scene where Superman induces the Earth to reverse its rotation in order to have time move backwards, say it about as well as anyone could: "There are few scenes in all of movies ever produced that rewrite so many physics laws as this one does." The most basic mistake? Superman flies in the opposite direction from where he needs to go to reverse the Earth's rotation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Um, instead of that, how about "progress of time is not tied to the rotation of Earth"?

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slam-o-rama:<BR>my all-time bad science groaner is from Deja Vu. <BR><BR>it's like expecting your LCD screen to transmit images just because you can see someone in skype in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That reminds me of "Clear and Present Danger". Harrison Ford is sitting in one room accessing CIA-documents that reside on a server, while another guy is sitting in the next room deleting those same files. Whenever he deletes a file, that file disappears from Ford's screen even as he's reading it. He then frantically tries to print just one of those documents before they get deleted. And he does manage to print one file, seconds before it gets deleted.<BR><BR>My first reaction to that was: "um, if you are reading a server-based document on your computer, and someone else deletes that file, it doesn't magically disappear from your wordprocessor...".

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fluppeteer:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Twelve:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janne:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Superman... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Um, instead of that, how about "progress of time is not tied to the rotation of Earth"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He flies fast enough to go back in time. The direction of rotation reverses when the flow of time reverses. The direction that he flies doesn't matter; just the speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>*Oh*. That makes much more sense. I'd always assumed that the scene was trying to say that he'd reversed time by spinning the Earth backwards, rather than travelling back through it (which is, I guess, the same thing as reversing time). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Same thing here. The actual scene is quite confusing and I always thought that he was attempting to reverse the rotation of Earth, and therefore reverse the flow of time. And that wouldn't make any sense, even in Superman-universe.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrNSX:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dianne Hackborn:<br>Pretty much any time at all a movie (or TV show) does something involving computers. For example, the one you see all the time: zooming in to an image and then magically sharpening it. Argh!!! </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Agreed. My favorite was from Jurassic Park as the girl goes flying through a 3D environment:<br><br>"I know this -- it's UNIX!" -- View image here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/forum/smilies/biggrin.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Actually, the filemanager she was using did actually exist, and it did run on IRIX (the OS she was using in the movie)... That said, what I can't understand is why they had to kill the power from the master-switch (located at the opposite side of the complex), instead of just walking over to the relevant computers and restarting them from the powerswitch....

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Interactive Civilian:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rostov:<BR>I vaguely remember the big dogfight scene in Top Gun where Tom Cruise says something like "I have them on radar. 200 miles out. I'll be there in 30 seconds." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[EDIT]Whoops...nevermind. Though I do believe the quote included something about being supersonic.<BR><BR>"I have them on radar. 200 miles out. Maverick is supersonic, I'll be there in 30 seconds).<BR><BR>Now, just out of curiosity, assuming that the dogfight was moving in that direction at pretty good speed (as was indicated in the radar room on the Aircraft carrier), how long would it take to cover 200 miles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are at least two annoying things in Top Gun:<BR><BR>a) There is no such thing as "Mig-28". Migs were all odd-numbered (Mig-19, 21, 23, 25 etc.)<BR><BR>b) F-14 Tomcats were not supposed to engage in dogfights. They were supposed to shoot their targets down 100 miles away with their Phoenix-missiles. In actual dogfight, I think they wold have lost, since they are not deisgned for dogfighting.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by swiftdraw:<BR>Actually, for it's size, the F-14 was a highly maneuverable aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yes, "for it's size". That's like saying "for it's size, B-52 Stratofortress is highly manouverable aircraft". It still doesn't mean that facing a bunch of nimble dogfighters with one makes much sense.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by operagost:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janne:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by swiftdraw:<BR>Actually, for it's size, the F-14 was a highly maneuverable aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yes, "for it's size". That's like saying "for it's size, B-52 Stratofortress is highly manouverable aircraft". It still doesn't mean that facing a bunch of nimble dogfighters with one makes much sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>While we're correcting each other, the possessive of "it" is "its", not "it's". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, English is my second language. Lets hear your Finnish while we are at it.