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

 

[Aphasia]

DING - And Nyx gets the cookie. He, hadn't heard Nivens version of it. That one was really nice.

 

[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><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by operagost:<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. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Touchy!<br><br>I was simply pointing out that rational thought is not something Americans are known for. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Just Americans, eh? -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif --

 

[DriverGuru]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grimlog:<BR><BR>Also, the animation of the end of B5 was superb IMO. *SPOILER Warning* Instead of showing it all being obliterated in a gigantic bang as with most sci-fi anything, the explosions took it out in parts, with individuals parts <B>tearing off</B>, not blown off as a result of the explosion and very large sections surviving the blast after being blown/torn off the station.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Except that the rationale for blowing the station up was damned stupid. "It's obsolete and a hazard to navigation." If the station is a hazard to navigation, think how bad umpteen billion pieces of space junk will be. Just move it a bit, or drop it into the sun or onto a nearby planet. <BR><BR>Let's also remember the times (yes, more than one) when an unguided ship came through the Jumpgate and managed to end up on a collision course with B5. This seems like poor planning. Wouldn't it makes sense to move the station just a little bit? Or the Jumpgate?

 

[Macwarrior]

<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 Panick:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by operagost:<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. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Touchy!<br><br>I was simply pointing out that rational thought is not something Americans are known for. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Just Americans, eh? -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I was trying to think of a good way to come back to that "americans" comment, but I couldn't. Congratulations -- you've encapsulated my feelings.<br><br>Also, regarding things exploding in space (as mentioned above) -- as cool as it looks, I hate it when things explode with a giant annular shockwave (a fiery ring). Especially things that are enormous, like the death star. The reason you get an annular shockwave like that on earth is because the shock front is actually a sphere, cut off at the ground, and only visible near the ground cause that's where the dust is. Hence, it looks like a ring.<br><br>If you've ever seen pictures of candles burning in space, you'll see what a space explosion would look like: a perfectly spherical flame front.<br><br>I'm willing to ignore the whole flames-in-space-in-the-first-place problem by believing that whatever blew up was loaded with oxidizer or a hypergolic mixture of some kind. Even then the flame front would only travel a certain distance before all its oxidizer was exhausted.<br><br>I'd guess that a space explosion would be a bright light that quickly fades out, followed by a bunch of shrapnel flying outwards in more or less a sphere.<br><br>(Also I loved the seismic charges in Attack of the Clones. They had an awesome sound. You see the obvious problem with a sonic weapon working in space. PLus, it made the annular ring).<br><br>(PS for all the music geeks out there: did you know that those bombs explode in the key of D minor? Also, what sort of a name is Jango Fett? Super karma++; to the one who makes the connection...I think the sound designers were being very clever.)

 

[budder]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<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? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Away. Just like another system you might be familiar with.

 

[HokieMattDude]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Salvasian:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schubacca:<BR>I still wonder how an A-Wing managed to knock out a Super Star Destroyer shields... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's an easy one. Shields (at least in Star Wars... don't ask me about real life) are only good against lasers/blasters and not against physical objects such as proton torpedos, missiles, and ships. Accordingly it was possible for the A-Wing to fly through the shield to destroy it.<BR><BR>Saying the above (which I learnt from many hours wasted playing Star Wars games and reading the novels), Star Wars contradicts itself a number of times in relation to shields, for example the shield protecting the second Death Star would apparantly destroy any ship hitting it (which is why the Rebels all pull up), but yet the shields protecting the ships could not protect against missiles and torpedos... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Right before the A-Wing flew into the bridge, the shield generator was destroyed by another A-Wing and an X-wing I believe (the big orb thing that blew up), then the movie shifts to the scene on the bridge. Admiral Piett (sp?) is informed the bridge shields are down, he wants forward laser fire intensified to destroy incoming starfighters. But the A-Wing makes it through. <BR><BR>So in a nutshell, the shields were down, so the A-Wing had no obstruction to flying through the bridge.

 

[Tigerion]

<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 irfoton:<br>in the movies they show lasers on f-16s or f-15s blowing up asteroids. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>That sounds AWESOME. Neither of those planes go in space, dangerous asteroids haven't come any closer than about 500,000 miles from earth since the time of the dinosaurs, laser weapons are nowhere near powerful enough to destroy something in space from an atmospheric firing point, those planes don't carry laser weapons in the first place -- I want to see it! What's the movie called?<br><br>Oh, and The Physics of Star Trek was written by a physics prof at my university. Yay for minor fame! </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Actually Near earth objects are a bigger threat than you think<br>Apophis is an approximately 400 meter near-Earth object (NEO), which will come closer to Earth in 2029 than the orbit of our geostationary satellites.<br><br>But the rest of your post remains valid -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

 

[robrod]

<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 robrod:<BR>What's really dumb is this topic. Maybe we should bash Disney 'cause animals can't talk...or can they? Oh, and there is no such thing as magic or fairy god-mothers. <BR><BR>Huh, I guess that's why they call the Science Fiction and Fantasy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Please read the lines in my 2nd-to-previous post, beginning with "Some things can be explained as logical progressions of today's technology, some can't.".<BR><BR>Science fiction is based on science, with extrapolations. You're thinking of plain old fiction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Nope sorry, I have to disagree. Fiction is Fiction is Fiction. Fiction implies it's fantasy and not necessarily based on fact, and nearly always speculative. Sci-fi novels are no different than movies, which most are based on anyways.<BR><BR>Also, show us where in the "Great Book of Movie Rules" it says Sci-Fi is limited to extrapolations. Geez, that would suck. Who wants movies to remain limited to what could be possible. Sci-fi is supposed to be cool and spark the imagination.<BR><BR>Also, no one has really shown how movies are dumbing down science. The original author makes the claim, but itself is merely speculation, no contributor has even addressed this.<BR><BR>Someone please site an example where sci-fi movies have degraded the efforts of science, or actually had any effect, besides positive interest in science.<BR><BR>I would argue if anything sci-fi has sparked the interest of people around the world and if anything lead to more great thinkers and inspiration in the field and done nothing but help improve real science.

 

[Finsternuke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polaris20:<BR>It's true....modern movies have completely corrupted my true understanding of science. For example, I have no idea how a real lightsaber works.<BR><BR>Also, everybody knows real mutates bitten by radioactive spiders have the web shoot out of just above their ass....not their wrists. Silly movies. They get it all wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This was one instance where Hollywood used their own idea. The comic book had Peter Parker INVENT the web shooter and they were strapped to his wrist. A little more plausible.

 

[Finsternuke]

There was a study done which suggested people on juries had succumbed to the CSI effect.<BR><BR>In other words, they couldn't understand that having DNA at the crime scene did not automatically make the person guilty of the crime. <BR><BR>Also, many convicted felons have recently been released because it was assumed that since the DNA found at the scene was not theirs, they were innocent.<BR><BR>Both dangerous precedents. I understand that normal police procedures take a great deal of time. I'm just not all people who watch CSI do.

 

[Macwarrior]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tigerion:<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><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irfoton:<br>in the movies they show lasers on f-16s or f-15s blowing up asteroids. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>That sounds AWESOME. Neither of those planes go in space, dangerous asteroids haven't come any closer than about 500,000 miles from earth since the time of the dinosaurs, laser weapons are nowhere near powerful enough to destroy something in space from an atmospheric firing point, those planes don't carry laser weapons in the first place -- I want to see it! What's the movie called?<br><br>Oh, and The Physics of Star Trek was written by a physics prof at my university. Yay for minor fame! </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Actually Near earth objects are a bigger threat than you think<br>Apophis is an approximately 400 meter near-Earth object (NEO), which will come closer to Earth in 2029 than the orbit of our geostationary satellites.<br><br>But the rest of your post remains valid -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well, that's a future example, so my post _is_ still valid -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --<br><br>I recall reading a report some time ago saying that there were maybe 2-3 extinction-level asteroids (<1km, roughly) that come within a million miles per century, but none had passed within the moon's orbit since we started recording. Could be wrong about the specific numbers. In any case, I agree with you: there are a lot of NEOs out there.<br><br>Oh, and it's pretty miraculous that we haven't had an ELE in 65 million years. I thought that, statistically, we were supposed to have a meteor impact that big every few million.

 

[Jim Salter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aphasia:<BR>DING - And Nyx gets the cookie. He, hadn't heard Nivens version of it. That one was really nice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The corollary I prefer is "any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."

 

[P St-Arnaud]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR>For instance, the aliens wouldn't need to have all the assault saucers and little ships. Just parking their mothership where it was ("one quarter the size of the moon", "halfway between the earth and the moon") would cause such massive tidal forces that the entire planet would be ripped to pieces by tidal waves, earthquakes and volcanoes. No need for antimatter death rays. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'll give them benefit of doubt on that one: It's "one quarter the size of the moon", but doesn't say anything about mass. From what I remember it looked pretty much honeycombed, and there would be benefits to a lower mass...<BR><BR>I agree with the B5/Firefly/Serenity comments - science in those shows, while imperfect, at least attempted to be realistic. Sci-fi with a lower standard than 1950's space operas made on a dime lose my interest real quick. At least the original Star Trek lacked pretention; the later series became worse on technobabble and pseudoscience as they went along, making them almost unwatchable AFAIK.<BR><BR>But I'll grant bonus point for movies made in good fun... Triple Contact Electro Magnet, anyone?

 

[Moekandu]

I would say that my biggest gripe with "Live Free or Die Hard" wasn't the billions of bullets that can be stopped by mere cars doors, or even the gravity defying stunts. It was the bad guys copying half a petabyte of data on to a "couple of hard drives".<br><br>Yeah, try a <b>thousand</b> 500GB hard drives. That's five 42U cabinets filled with 14 drive enclosures with 14 drives each. That doesn't even include UPS/PDU's, fibre switches or anything else; just drive arrays.<br><br>What they should have done is hook up a decently sized tape library (say, like an Storagetek L700 or Adic i2000). With 20 LTO-3's and a full 2:1 compression, you would need 625 tapes and about 10 hours (each drive can sustain 70MB/s real world) to transfer 500TB of data.<br><br>Besides, it would be cool to show a robotic arm whipping around swapping tapes in and out of drives and slots. Then you've got a monster 48 port 2Gb switch with cables running from to the tape drives and the in house SAN. One, it gives a real sense of perspective to the audience about the sheer amount of data. Two, you don't even need to put the library into the data center, just run the fibre cables into the SAN's switch (up to 10Km). And three, it just looks cool.<br><br>I mean, if you're going to go to the expense to build a cool-ass command center into an 18-wheel trailer, what's a tape library or two?<br><br>God, I am such a storage geek. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif --<br><br>Edit: Today's post brought to you by the letter Ssssss.

 

[ajira99]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by decastud:<BR>ARMAGEDDON<BR><BR>it was SO full of impossible stuff I can't bgin to recall it all:<BR><BR>- asteorid the size of TEXAS?<BR>- two space shuttles which get launched together a few hundred yards from each other<BR>- the MIR space station rotating in orbit simulating gravity?<BR>- the two shuttles docking with the MIR WHILE it is rotating?<BR>- the astromauts talking to each other while their ships are going 10+ G<BR>... and SO SO many more<BR><BR>sigh! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck -- enough said!<BR><BR>Also, my personal pet peeve would be AI and the 3 Laws of Robotics! I was a six year old child and I cursed Isaac Asimov for trying to cram this misbegotten bile down our throats! I still hate him to this day for this nonsense. And how do they address the inherent fallacies of the 3 Laws? "A robot of sufficient intellect can choose to reinterpret the meaning of the 3 Laws". Spew!!!

 

[mogbert]

I'd like to chime in with my personal favorite. I haven't gotten to read the whole thread (that'll come at lunch) but I'm pretty sure no one has mentioned this:<br>In CSI, one time they needed to get a license plate off of a car from a security camera. No, wait, this isn't a case of sharpening an image to absurdity. THIS time, the car was at the wrong angle. So what they did was feed the 2D capture of the car into a 3D program, build a 3D model of the car, then ROTATE it to see the license plate!!!<br><br>If that kind of stuff was possible, just imagine the pr0n that would be out there -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><br><br>That and in in Transformers when they zoom into a "signal" to see little pictograms of language floating around in the signal. So THAT'S how the CIA wire tap the phones!

 

[Who Cares]

For people interested in the more technical side of the starwars/startrek weaponry/shielding I might suggest : SD.net, it is a bit biased for starwars but the math and analysis behind it seem fairly solid.<BR> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HokieMattDude:<BR>Right before the A-Wing flew into the bridge, the shield generator was destroyed by another A-Wing and an X-wing I believe (the big orb thing that blew up), then the movie shifts to the scene on the bridge. Admiral Piett (sp?) is informed the bridge shields are down, he wants forward laser fire intensified to destroy incoming starfighters. But the A-Wing makes it through. <BR><BR>So in a nutshell, the shields were down, so the A-Wing had no obstruction to flying through the bridge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not so much by fighter damage but by an entire fleet of ships pouring every Erg of energy available into the SSD.

 

[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.

 

[zuben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR><BR>(PS for all the music geeks out there: did you know that those bombs explode in the key of D minor? Also, what sort of a name is Jango Fett? Super karma++; to the one who makes the connection...I think the sound designers were being very clever.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Jango Reinhardt (sp?)<BR><BR>just a guess. I don't know any other Jango's related to music.<BR><BR>BTW: I just saw "The Green Mile", an otherwise well directed (if a bit cheesy) film, and sure enough--there were about a dozen consecutive (and exclusive) lightning flashes with instantaneous thunder right before the final execution. I groaned. Even the most modern movies <I>still</I> do this. Why?!

 

[RojBlake]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Green Goblin cut the cables on the Roosevelt Island Tram but held the loose end to keep it from plunging into the East River. Although he was well positioned to handle the vertical component of the force, the horizontal portion of the pull from the tram car would have wrenched him sideways and into the river. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Um, didn't they consider that, you know, if he's meant to be superhumanly strong enough to <I>hold up a tram full of people with one hand</I>, then he's probably also strong enough to counter the horizontal forces attempting to pull him into the river?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">rough estimate of the calories Magneto had to consume to fuel the magnetic fields that moved the Golden Gate Bridge? 4.8 million, the equivalent to burning of 1,350 pounds of fat. Dieters, take note. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It's funny that they mentioned this, yet somehow failed to notice the much more obvious, physics-defying factor: the ability of the bridge's roadway to remain flat and not plunge into the bay, despite the fact that, once the suspension cables are ripped from their moorings, there's no longer anything holding it up.