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

 

[manys]

I love these quarterly "lame movie science" stories that never change anything because they all always refer to the same movies over and over. Editorial Ad trolling never looked so good!

 

[Panick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Shadow:<BR>Sure. But most people have thrown rocks, baseballs, basketballs, horseshoes, bowling balls, you name it. Used garden hoses, too. I'm not asking for a MATHEMATICAL grasp of Newtonian physics, here, but it shouldn't require a degree to see a guy one-handing a pistol that blows the target 5 feet back, frown, and think "that looks wrong." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm not sure quite what you're trying to get at here. The reason that most people have wrong understanding of the impacts of firearms is exactly because the physics are somewhat different than what would be experienced with other forms of projectiles. If I throw a heavy object (such as a large rock) at the head of my target the inertia gets transfered from the rock to his head on contact and given a large enough rock will cause his head to snap back. If I shoot the head of my target with a firearm something altogether different is taking place because the bullet doesn't transfer a lot of the energy to the targets head until it's gone inside (or in some cases through) the skull. Given a bullet of sufficient force that will cause the head to snap towards the shot (as the bullet transfers its energy through the brain matter to the back of the skull as it exits). If you've never fired a gun before you've really got no "real world experience" that will convey the kinds of forces that are at work. So it makes perfect sense to me that such people are going to fall back on the rock throwing experience to explain what happens.

 

[torok]

<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>"Enhance! I need to see that freckle on the guy 20 feet away from the old VHS security camera!"

 

[BuckG]

I am ok with suspension of disbelief and laws of physics being messed with for the sake of a movie. But I draw the line and the internal logic not making any sense.<BR><BR><BR>ex/<BR><BR>The Core<BR><BR><BR>The material used in the hull of the ship gets stronger as you increase temperature and pressure. As a chemist, I flinch but can buy it for the sake of the movie. The material also however takes this energy and converts to electricity.<BR><BR>Ok, fine -- I can even buy that (ugh), but when they are welding heavy duty power cables to the ship with their <B>BARE FRACKEN HANDS</B> !!!<BR><BR>NO.

 

[Tempus --)-------]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BubbaFett:<BR>This is one reason Firefly/Serenity and BSG are awesome. No "phasers" you can see in a vacuum traveling slower than bullets. No sound in space. No oddly human-looking aliens. They have nukes and bullets! And the physics of the vipers are a nice touch. Sure there are technologies we don't understand, and maybe they're even impossible, but they don't blatantly violate what we DO understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>For the most part you can add babylon 5 to that list as well their space battle scenes in particular were pretty decent (OK there were a fairly high number of humanoid aliens... but hey at least they were not ALL that way.. )

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuckG:<BR>I am ok with suspension of disbelief and laws of physics being messed with for the sake of a movie. But I draw the line and the internal logic not making any sense.<BR><BR><BR>ex/<BR><BR>The Core<BR><BR><BR>The material used in the hull of the ship gets stronger as you increase temperature and pressure. As a chemist, I flinch but can buy it for the sake of the movie. The material also however takes this energy and converts to electricity.<BR><BR>Ok, fine -- I can even buy that (ugh), but when they are welding heavy duty power cables to the ship with their <B>BARE FRACKEN HANDS</B> !!!<BR><BR>NO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, those properties are hypothetically plausible. Some metals get stronger with stress (cold working), and many ceramics produce electrical charges as they are deformed (piezoelectrics).<BR><BR>However, they just stuck the cables on arbitrarily -- isn't it convenient that the ship deals with all those nasty circuit intricacies itself? And that it seemingly produces power at 220v 60 Hz AC, or whatever the ship needs?<BR><BR>Also, if it converts heat and pressure to electricity, and the only place the ship is going is THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, why didn't they even CONSIDER having a backup power system that runs on all this power? And for that matter, where did it all go before they started drawing it off?

 

[mcmcc]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by venzann:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">zooming in to an image and then magically sharpening it. Argh!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Which reminds me... <BR><BR>I was about 15 in the mid-80's when I first saw the movie "Blade Runner". Even back then, the basically-infinite-resolution Polaroid photo scene in that movie bugged the hell out of me. Completely blew my suspension of disbelief. <BR><BR>Otherwise, a very good movie.

 

[Tom Dunkerton]

The thing about Star Trek that always gets me is how easy it is to communicate and exchange techlogy with alien species:<BR><BR>-Computers are compatible with each other. Not only can an alien's computer "download" the data from another, all the parts fit. You can get a data module and plug it in and it works. Yeah right! <BR><BR>- The vast majority of warp capable species are humanoid and are about the same size and weight. They also come from planets of similar gravity, simliar lengths of days and years, and identical (oxygen/nitrogen) atmoshperes.<BR><BR>- The universal translator can instantly regognize new languages even in the Delta Quandrant.<BR><BR>- Then there is the many times when our heros learn how to pilot alien space craft in a matter of minutes.<BR><BR>- When there is a loss of power, they divert energy from life support but leave the holodecks online.<BR><BR>- When the ship gets hit by a weapon, everybody has to hold on as the ship rocks back and forth. Then they go from zero to warp six in seconds without any accelleration effects.

 

[Whytewulfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have to mention Babylon 5 as a series which had a good representation of real physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Gotta say I disgree with you on this one.<BR><BR>Perhaps most of it was realistic, but one glaring mistake broke the spell completely for me. <BR><BR>There are *several* scenes throughout the series where they do a complete 180 in these starfuries. In space, this would cause *all* of the blood in the pilots body to move to one side , and he would immediately pass out and likely die shortly thereafter (fury being out of control and spinning).<BR><BR>You cannot do a 180 at *any* respectable velocity in space without artificial gravity and hope to at the very least remain conscious.

 

[kyotodude]

Okay, someone mentioned Sunshine. Good movie, but... Underlying low level computer/spaceship functions are tied <B>completely</B> to a highly advanced UI/AI? Bad Guy, who's been exposed to the sun in high enough levels to permanently damage external organs is still incredibly strong, is able to breathe regularly, and isn't just a human-sized tumor? And if we can develop shields which can allow me to stand inches from the sun's surface, why can't we just do whatever we want?

 

[operagost]

<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".

 

[hexjones]

The concept of dogfights in space is ridiculous too. Sci-fi action would be like watching Nova without them. <BR><BR>By the way, the whole Top Gun issue with F-14 being less maneuverable than the Mig is addressed in the dialog. So is the fact that it isn't made for dog-fighting.

 

[flamacue]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hagge:<BR>One of the very few that does computers nicely is the series Veronica Mars, she uses Mac's and most of the time the software she uses is real software like iPhoto and Photoshop etc. In one episode two geeks even have a real argument about Ubuntu vs Mac OS X that made sense! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS9wdD-9EYU

 

[kswartz]

<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... 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"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, when I saw this movie as a kid, I never thought he was trying to just get the earth to spin the other way. I mean, come on, when it stopped, everyone would fall off!<BR><BR>I always thought Superman was just trying to misinterpret Einstein's rules about faster-than-light travel and how if you could travel faster than light, you could conceivably go backwards in time. What I thought we were seeing was him flying faster than light, so the earth rotating backwards was actually just what was happening in the background as he went backward in time.<BR><BR>That didn't insult me QUITE as much, but it still certainly belongs on this list.

 

[dedsmith]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Shadow:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dedsmith:<BR>Because explosions and firearms ARE outside of most everyone's day-to-day experience, EXCEPT for in the movies, TV, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure. But most people have thrown rocks, baseballs, basketballs, horseshoes, bowling balls, you name it. Used garden hoses, too. I'm not asking for a MATHEMATICAL grasp of Newtonian physics, here, but it shouldn't require a degree to see a guy one-handing a pistol that blows the target 5 feet back, frown, and think "that looks wrong."<BR><BR>As for the explosions and such - most people haven't been around a massive incendiary device, sure, but they <I>have</I> used ovens and barbeque grills. Again, I'm not expecting somebody to deduce an inverse-square relationship or exact convection patterns, but if you've ever flipped a steak on a grill how can you NOT know that it's by god HOT over the coals?<BR><BR>I'm actually a lot more forgiving of things like space mistakes. (Though I still think with hundred-million-dollar budgets, somebody could give a grad student some beer and pizza to come up with both believable AND cool versions of their dramatic scenes even there.) But EVERYBODY deals with basic Newtonian physics and simple thermodynamic transfer every moment of their lives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Agreed. They SHOULD have an intuitive understanding from what they're familiar with and extrapolating to higher velocities and large fireballs, but they don't.<BR><BR>Why?<BR><BR>Perhaps because they're using movies to supplement their own first-hand experience. That's the way the bullets worked in Movie A, so why should they be skeptical in movie B? Repeat enough times and that's what 'looks right'. Why would they need to extrapolate? (which has it's own dangers when you're changing quantities by an order of magnitude)<BR><BR>Face it, most people are LOUSY observers. And being a skeptical observer certainly doesn't help the enjoyment of a movie.

 

[operagost]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Panick:<BR>Well if you're talking about the American populous and if most current polls can be believed, 45% of them believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. So even presenting them with scientific fact (as opposed to movie fact) is unlikely to shake them from their improbable beliefs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And apparently, all the books and web sites written about the use of logical fallacies won't keep internet trolls from pulling out red herrings in every debate.

 

[Jim Salter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Panick:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Shadow:<BR>... it shouldn't require a degree to see a guy one-handing a pistol that blows the target 5 feet back, frown, and think "that looks wrong." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm not sure quite what you're trying to get at here. The reason that most people have wrong understanding of the impacts of firearms is exactly because the physics are somewhat different than what would be experienced with other forms of projectiles. If I throw a heavy object (such as a large rock) at the head of my target the inertia gets transfered from the rock to his head on contact and given a large enough rock will cause his head to snap back. If I shoot the head of my target with a firearm something altogether different is taking place because the bullet doesn't transfer a lot of the energy to the targets head until it's gone inside (or in some cases through) the skull. Given a bullet of sufficient force that will cause the head to snap towards the shot (as the bullet transfers its energy through the brain matter to the back of the skull as it exits). If you've never fired a gun before you've really got no "real world experience" that will convey the kinds of forces that are at work. So it makes perfect sense to me that such people are going to fall back on the rock throwing experience to explain what happens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Uh, what?<BR><BR>We're talking about bodies flying through the air, here, not somebody's head snapping back. And I'm not sure what projectile penetration is supposed to have to do with that.

 

[Jim Salter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dedsmith:<BR>That's the way the bullets worked in Movie A, so why should they be skeptical in movie B? Repeat enough times and that's what 'looks right' [...] <BR><BR>Face it, most people are LOUSY observers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Agreed. Hated, but agreed.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And being a skeptical observer certainly doesn't help the enjoyment of a movie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It does if it's a GOOD movie! =)

 

[NMR Guy]

One problem with realistic science is that it will often make for a boring story. Sometimes you need to leave that stuff in the textbooks and make a movie or story that's fun to watch or read.<BR><BR>On the other hand, SciFi is often so bad because too much license is taken with reality. When anything is possible, nothing is surprising to the viewer or reader. Nothing kills a story faster than omnipotence.<BR><BR>This is why so many mediocre storytellers gravitate to this medium. Time travel, quantum magic, and anything else you can whip up in a word blender means you need very little creativity to put together a tale.

 

[Jim Salter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whytewulfe:<BR>There are *several* scenes throughout the series where they do a complete 180 in these starfuries.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Do they "do a complete 180" in reference to a stationary object, or to other objects in motion?<BR><BR>Accelerating at 2G is accelerating at 2G; the vector doesn't affect the pilot whatsoever. If the chasing whatsit is still accelerating at 2G in the same direction of the original chase, the net RELATIVE effect will be for the original chased whatsit to accelerate retrograde to the original chaser at 4G, but the pilot won't feel a thing.<BR><BR>(On the other hand if it suddenly reversed not only bearing but <I>direction of travel</I> relative to a "stationary" object, that would be a problem.)

 

[BeowulfSchaeffer]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Paul Hill:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<br>So, when he alters the earth's field lines so that they all bunch up in san francisco, what happens to the rest of the world? </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>The movie doesn't tell us. We can assume everyone got a nice tan -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>LOL that made my day! -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif --<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whytewulfe:<br>There are *several* scenes throughout the series where they do a complete 180 in these starfuries. In space, this would cause *all* of the blood in the pilots body to move to one side , and he would immediately pass out and likely die shortly thereafter (fury being out of control and spinning).<br><br>You cannot do a 180 at *any* respectable velocity in space without artificial gravity and hope to at the very least remain conscious. </div>
</blockquote>I remember the pilot as being the center of gravity on those ships. Perhaps I am mistaken. If they are however, the centrifugal force would be minimal. Besides, that is what pressure suits are for.

 

[Jim Salter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Dunkerton:<BR>- When the ship gets hit by a weapon, everybody has to hold on as the ship rocks back and forth. Then they go from zero to warp six in seconds without any accelleration effects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's actually not necessarily a problem. The whole "warp" thing implies strongly non-Newtonian things going on, so why should it necessarily be constrained by action and reaction? It actually makes more sense for the "warp" drive not to involve physical acceleration at all than it does to speculate some sort of gravity control strong enough to compensate for millions of G acceleration. (Not to mention that you have to throw both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics out the airlock to travel that fast anyway.)<BR><BR>And we don't actually know how fast "a quarter impulse power" is - or whether the impulse engines are directly correlated with the gravity control - so it's really not that implausible to feel impacts from weapons fire.<BR><BR>What IS implausible is the MAGNITUDE of those impacts. Anything that actually jars a structure the size (more importantly, mass) of the Enterprise far enough to fling people across the bridge is going to completely destroy it.

 

[uberpenguin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Paul Hill:<BR>Anyways, physics fans, go and rent/buy <I>Primer</I>. It'll make you feel better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Or give you a really bad headache. What you gain in the way of scientific believability (or rather, lack of excessive inane technobabble) you lose in the coherent plot department. I've seen websites where people attempt to map out the various time lines, and it ain't pretty.<BR><BR>I did like the movie, though.

 

[tkulla]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR>In another fusion example, Doc Ock poking at a nuclear fireball from 10 feet with robot arms is a little harder to understand. The neutron flux alone should have fried every living thing in a large radius, let alone the observers in the room. Oh, right -- they were wearing goggles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>"The goggles - they do NOTHING!"

 

[Maxer]

I still find SpaceBalls to be the most scientifically accurate movie of all times...<BR><BR>and ANYONE who disagrees... well let's just say you had better not try going over my helmet...

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Shadow:<BR>Anything that actually jars a structure the size (more importantly, mass) of the Enterprise far enough to fling people across the bridge is going to completely destroy it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I always wondered about the shield generators. Presumably, what they're doing is resisting the impact of the object being fired at the spaceship. In order to provide resistance, though, they need something massive to push against -- the ship, of course. So the generators are basically distributing the force of the impact over the entire mass of the ship. Makes sense, most armor works that way.<BR><BR>But think about it some more. The point that the impact's force transfers from shield to ship is, necessarily, the generator. So in order for this transfer to work properly, the shield generator has to be coupled to the bulk of the ship with some method that can effectively transfer all the force of whatever is hitting the shields.<BR><BR>I'd like to see the bolts that hold the generator in place against a photon torpedo impact...I always have this picture of the generator being torn out of its mounts and flying backwards through the hull of the ship.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The goggles - they do NOTHING!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was waiting for that. The quote is actually "my eyes -- the goggles do nothing!" though.

 

[Fiendish]

My guess is that the people complaining about the magical computer "Enhance" button don't understand the current state of computer vision. Super-resolution is very real. There are algorithms that can actively increase the quality of an image under certain circumstances. One way of doing it is through trained texture synthesis. Another way uses comparison across multiple frames of video. I'm not going to go into details of how the algorithms work, but searching for superresolution would probably be a good start.

 

[Tempus --)-------]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Shadow:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whytewulfe:<BR>There are *several* scenes throughout the series where they do a complete 180 in these starfuries.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Do they "do a complete 180" in reference to a stationary object, or to other objects in motion?<BR><BR>Accelerating at 2G is accelerating at 2G; the vector doesn't affect the pilot whatsoever. If the chasing whatsit is still accelerating at 2G in the same direction of the original chase, the net RELATIVE effect will be for the original chased whatsit to accelerate retrograde to the original chaser at 4G, but the pilot won't feel a thing.<BR><BR>(On the other hand if it suddenly reversed not only bearing but <I>direction of travel</I> relative to a "stationary" object, that would be a problem.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They would typically flip over, 'tracking' on (and firing at) a passing enemy, so changing heading but maintaining their prior vector.. then start thrusting to cancel out their intertia and take on a new vector..<BR><BR>Frankly I don't see the flip to be that difficult, zero G or not. If flipping your body end for end rapidly would cause you to pass out, even in zero gee, then a huge number of people would be passing out on the dismount from many gymnastic exercises, or while cliff diving.. (both maneuvers are effectively done 'in freefall' hence in 'zero gravity')

 

[CUclimber]

To all of you talking about Mythbusters:<BR><BR>Remember that Adam and Jamie run a <I>special effects company</I>, and are likely responsible for producing a lot of the unrealistic effects that you're all bitching about.

 

[Jim Salter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR>I always wondered about the shield generators. Presumably, what they're doing is resisting the impact of the object being fired at the spaceship. In order to provide resistance, though... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My understanding was that Star Trek shields were only effective against energy weapons (phasers) - the whole point of photon torpedoes being that they could disable a fully shielded ship, but being made of super unobtainium deluxe you only had a few of them, and being "torpedoes" they were slow enough to be dodged or ECM'ed or what have you.<BR><BR>I think it's a DEAD lock that angry Star Trek fans have done more backwards rationalization of "how Trek tech works" than the actual creator EVER put into its actual creation. =)

 

[Great Scott]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ronelson:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lasers producing visible beams of light. This would include just about any movie with a laser that's not used to play with a cat. Yes, they can reflect off dust particles, but in most cases, the dust would have to be too thick to actually see anything else in the room. And there's not much dust in most areas of space. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Lasers don't produce visible light, but you may be able to see an after-image in your retina. Chances are you won't see green for good guys and red for bad guys, though! Hell, in some movies the laser colors change depending on who's holding the gun.<BR><BR>Rob Nelson<BR>rnelson0@gmail.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm going to show my ignorance and get schooled now, I'm sure, but nonetheless I'm compelled to ask...<BR><BR>1) Can't laser light be emitted in a visible wavelength?<BR><BR>2) Is there some sort of energy limit to visible-wavelength lasers?<BR><BR>I admit that there is no good reason to make lasers visible (especially for military applications, you probably would NOT want that...) but I just don't get that it's "not possible" - just because it's in a movie?

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<BR>My guess is that the people complaining about the magical computer "Enhance" button don't understand the current state of computer vision. Super-resolution is real. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>And the ability to zoom in until the image is a foggy mess, then generate detail that was not in the original image, is not. Photoshop can work wonders on images, and some filtering techniques can do a hell of a lot to bring out detail that wasn't apparent, but going from a shot where the guy is a dot on a beach to reading the number he's punching into his cell phone is not possible with today's cameras or image processing.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Great Scott:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ronelson:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lasers producing visible beams of light. This would include just about any movie with a laser that's not used to play with a cat. Yes, they can reflect off dust particles, but in most cases, the dust would have to be too thick to actually see anything else in the room. And there's not much dust in most areas of space. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Lasers don't produce visible light, but you may be able to see an after-image in your retina. Chances are you won't see green for good guys and red for bad guys, though! Hell, in some movies the laser colors change depending on who's holding the gun.<BR><BR>Rob Nelson<BR>rnelson0@gmail.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm going to show my ignorance and get schooled now, I'm sure, but nonetheless I'm compelled to ask...<BR><BR>1) Can't laser light be emitted in a visible wavelength?<BR><BR>2) Is there some sort of energy limit to visible-wavelength lasers?<BR><BR>I admit that there is no good reason to make lasers visible (especially for military applications, you probably would NOT want that...) but I just don't get that it's "not possible" - just because it's in a movie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Of course lasers can be produced in visible wavelengths. A free-electron laser can work in just about any range, from microwave to x-ray. That's not the issue though.<BR>The issue is that you can't see a laser beam from the side. Unless there's something scattering the light in your direction, the beam is invisible -- no matter what color it is. The point of light you see from a laser pointer is scattered light from the surface, not the beam itself.<BR>A real laser weapon wouldn't be a visible red blob shooting through the air; it would be a big gun with a lens on the front, and when you fired it, you wouldn't see anything. There might be a heat ripple in the air, and your target would instantly heat up and glow, but the actual beam would not be visible in any way.

 

[Fiendish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Great Scott:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ronelson:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lasers producing visible beams of light. This would include just about any movie with a laser that's not used to play with a cat. Yes, they can reflect off dust particles, but in most cases, the dust would have to be too thick to actually see anything else in the room. And there's not much dust in most areas of space. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Lasers don't produce visible light, but you may be able to see an after-image in your retina. Chances are you won't see green for good guys and red for bad guys, though! Hell, in some movies the laser colors change depending on who's holding the gun.<BR><BR>Rob Nelson<BR>rnelson0@gmail.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm going to show my ignorance and get schooled now, I'm sure, but nonetheless I'm compelled to ask...<BR><BR>1) Can't laser light be emitted in a visible wavelength?<BR><BR>2) Is there some sort of energy limit to visible-wavelength lasers?<BR><BR>I admit that there is no good reason to make lasers visible (especially for military applications, you probably would NOT want that...) but I just don't get that it's "not possible" - just because it's in a movie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, people are just being stupid. See here:<BR>http://www.instructables.com/id/EWM4YR2F4WY1LQ2/

 

[Fiendish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<BR>My guess is that the people complaining about the magical computer "Enhance" button don't understand the current state of computer vision. Super-resolution is real. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>And the ability to zoom in until the image is a foggy mess, then generate detail that was not in the original image, is not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, it actually is. See figures 6 and 8 and the text in figure 4 in:<BR>www.cse.ucsc.edu/~milanfar/SR-challengesIJIST.pdf<BR>(not my paper)<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Photoshop can work wonders on images, and some filtering techniques can do a hell of a lot to bring out detail that wasn't apparent, but going from a shot where the guy is a dot on a beach to reading the number he's punching into his cell phone is not possible with today's cameras or image processing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not talking about filtering or photoshop. You may quibble about extreme degrees, but a less extreme example than the phone number on a cell phone from 20 miles away could be very real.

 

[Maxer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Dunkerton:<BR>The thing about Star Trek that always gets me is how easy it is to communicate and exchange techlogy with alien species:<BR><BR>-Computers are compatible with each other. Not only can an alien's computer "download" the data from another, all the parts fit. You can get a data module and plug it in and it works. Yeah right! <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What, you don't think everyone buys from Dell in the future and runs Windows...??? also: "American components Russian components, all made in Taiwan"<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>- The vast majority of warp capable species are humanoid and are about the same size and weight. They also come from planets of similar gravity, simliar lengths of days and years, and identical (oxygen/nitrogen) atmoshperes.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They explained that in an episode... two parter if memory serves!<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>- The universal translator can instantly regognize new languages even in the Delta Quandrant.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Janeway is a representation of everything that is wrong with the universe...<BR><BR>Also, if you look at it from a pattern matching/ cache prediction standpoint... every single alien they ever encountered in the history of StarTrek says basically the same thing when they first meet... so really just pulling at random from the "common death threats bag" should get it right 9 times out of 10<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>- Then there is the many times when our heros learn how to pilot alien space craft in a matter of minutes.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You figure the average 14 year old girl/boy can drive most any car... in the future... why would that be any different? Those kids stole their parent's car in (can't think of the name of the 80's film where those kids had that computer that levitated things and they built a space capsule and were picked up by an alien ship...)<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>- When there is a loss of power, they divert energy from life support but leave the holodecks online.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Be honest, if you had a holodeck would you EVER let it turn off... EVER?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>- When the ship gets hit by a weapon, everybody has to hold on as the ship rocks back and forth. Then they go from zero to warp six in seconds without any accelleration effects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm sure the inertial dampeners were offline during the fight... really that makes TOTAL sense... I don't see a problem with it at all

 

[FXWizard]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jgk6:<br>One pet peeve: every gun seems to have a huge muzzle flash. It's a wonder that soldiers and policemen in some of these epice can see anything after a two minute gun battle. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>You can blame that on the director and/or DOP; they want you to notice guns going off so "Hollywood loads" are generally used.<br><br>Sets are "smoked" for scenes using flashlights for a similar reason...how will you know what's going on if you don't have a really neat-looking visual? -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>Also, people, let's remember that originally Superman <b>couldn't fly</b> - he used his superpowers to leap from one place to another, which somehow mutated into flight and levitation. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<BR>Yes, it actually is. See figures 6 and 8 and the text in figure 4 in:<BR>www.cse.ucsc.edu/~milanfar/SR-challengesIJIST.pdf<BR>(not my paper)<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, that's amazing. It's not quite the same as the movies' using a low-res image to create high-res ones, since it relies on an image sequence, but still -- it looks like that part of machine vision is getting much much closer to hollywood's ideal.

 

[Tempus --)-------]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BeowolfSchaffer:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Paul Hill:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<br>So, when he alters the earth's field lines so that they all bunch up in san francisco, what happens to the rest of the world? </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>The movie doesn't tell us. We can assume everyone got a nice tan -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>LOL that made my day! -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif --<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whytewulfe:<br>There are *several* scenes throughout the series where they do a complete 180 in these starfuries. In space, this would cause *all* of the blood in the pilots body to move to one side , and he would immediately pass out and likely die shortly thereafter (fury being out of control and spinning).<br><br>You cannot do a 180 at *any* respectable velocity in space without artificial gravity and hope to at the very least remain conscious. </div>
</blockquote>I remember the pilot as being the center of gravity on those ships. Perhaps I am mistaken. If they are however, the centrifugal force would be minimal. Besides, that is what pressure suits are for. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Yeah the starfury was actually as far as I can tell a very realistic design for a space fighter.. the pilot layed 'flat' relative to the main axis of acceleration, which is the best orientation for them to the absorb the Gee force from the main motor. There was no attempt to 'plane off vacume' as we've seen with ships doing turns in starwars et al. Placing the weapons and such out on struts also gave you thrusters out on those struts, which let them work with slightly better leverage for changing the bearing of the ship.<br><br>In terms of a pure space fighter I think it's a much more practical design than Xwing, Awing, or even the Viper from BSG.. and the way it is depected as moving in space is WAY better than the others.. Even the new gen of BSG falls into the 'making atmospheric moves in space' trap to a degree

 

[Fiendish]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<br>Yes, it actually is. See figures 6 and 8 and the text in figure 4 in:<br>www.cse.ucsc.edu/~milanfar/SR-challengesIJIST.pdf<br>(not my paper)<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well, that's amazing. It's not quite the same as the movies' using a low-res image to create high-res ones, since it relies on an image sequence, but still -- it looks like that part of machine vision is getting much much closer to hollywood's ideal. </div>
</blockquote>You don't know that they aren't looking at one of many video frames in the movies. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br>There are also techniques, like I said, that don't require more than one image. They just don't work as well in general.

 

[Horseradish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Newmanium, re: Magneto & caloric output:<BR>The calorie burning approach was quite valid. They are talking about the Law of Conservation of Energy/Mass. They know how much the bridge weighs, so in order for Magneto to produce a magnetic field with THAT much force, the energy must come from <I>somewhere</I> , hence the 4 quadrillion calories or whatever they came up with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The problem with that gets handled many, many times in the Marvel universe. A significant number of superheroes have powers that 'disobey' all the laws of thermodynamics, not just the First.<BR><BR>I've always understood it that Magneto can <B>control</B> magnetism, not generate it; but whether he creates the field or simply manipulates it makes the "distance-squared" problem interesting enough that he has the sort of fine control we see. Storm can control weather--which, I believe, would require even more caloric output than Magneto's levitation of the GGB.<BR><BR>The one I love the best is how Cyclops can generate a 'beam of force' from his eyes that can blast (among other things) concrete to smithereens without snapping his head off his neck due to the recoil (not to mention how the ruby sunglasses can absorb the energy without re-radiating it in some fashion).<BR><BR>As posted earlier, comic book scenarios disobey physics from the get-go, so you only have a basis to complain when the authors have continuity errors or disobey their own 'ground rules.'