# Good Science and Bad Science And Lack Thereof In Science Fiction Films and TV Series



## BAYLOR

Which Science fiction  feature films  and tv series and tv movies  make the best and worst use of science or disregard science completely in their quest to tell a story an giving the audience  thrills  What are the examples of improbable science balderdash that you've observed ?


----------



## BAYLOR

There is no air in space therefore no medium  with which to carry sounds. Lots of science fiction films ignore this one and tv science fiction series as well.

*2001 a Space Odyssey  *didn't  do sound in space , did try to keep things within the realm of science.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

BAYLOR said:


> There is no air in space therefore no medium  with which to carry sounds. Lots of science fiction films ignore this one and tv science fiction series as well.
> 
> *2001 a Space Odyssey  *didn't  do sound in space , did try to keep things within the realm of science.



Abrams acknowledged this about Star Trek Into Darkness. He said that they tried it without sounds, and it just didn't work, except in a few places. There's a scene where a crewperson gets sucked out a hull breach and it then goes silent. THAT was effective.

That recent one with Scarlett Johansen -- Lucy? -- had some real howlers in it.


----------



## BAYLOR

*The Black Hole  *1979 and how does the Cygnus manage to hang over the black hole ?


----------



## Venusian Broon

BAYLOR said:


> *The Black Hole  *1979 and how does the Cygnus manage to hang over the black hole ?



A black hole is just like any other massive object - like a star - in most respects. You can _easily _safely orbit them (aren't all galaxies supposed to have supermassive black holes in their centres? And in the same way we all don't get sucked into the mass of the sun, do we?) It's only if you reach the event horizon that you reach the point of no return and they can be very small. The event horizon for a black hole the mass of the sun would be of radius 3 km - although the Sun's mass would be insufficient to actually create a black hole - a larger star that would theoretically make a black hole could have an event horizon not that much bigger. Very easy to avoid in a spaceship


----------



## BAYLOR

*Space 1999  *I love this show, but it's got it's share of implausibilities and not just season 2   How is is that traveling at less then the speed of light do they manage to visit other planets?


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

I don't think there's one single thing about Space 1999 that didn't make me cringe. It was one of the first science fiction shows that I refused to watch.


----------



## BAYLOR

Bizmuth said:


> I don't think there's one single thing about Space 1999 that didn't make me cringe. It was one of the first science fiction shows that I refused to watch.



The whole knocking the moon out of orbit very implausible .


----------



## Faisal Shamas

Lack of actual science or explanations of phenomenon in sci-fiction books is something I have been pretty worried about. Games and Movies which are supposed to be more superficial, I have found to be based around good science rather than the books. I blame the need for strong characterization for this, every agent in the market is seeking voice and character, nobody seems to care about plot or basics of science, basically I find science fiction books undeserving of that science tag. There are actually very few writers who use science in their books


----------



## BAYLOR

Star Wars, The way the fighters and ships swoop through space like they were flying through air.


----------



## mosaix

BAYLOR said:


> There is no air in space therefore no medium  with which to carry sounds. Lots of science fiction films ignore this one and tv science fiction series as well.
> 
> *2001 a Space Odyssey  *didn't  do sound in space , did try to keep things within the realm of science.



There is no air in space - correct, but where there is an explosion then there is an expanding gas cloud so you _would_ hear it as soon as that gas cloud reached your ears. *2001 a Space Odyssey* got it wrong. Remember the exploding bolts to get back into the air lock? No sound from the explosion? Would there really be no affect on the ear drums from the explosion? Also, no sound until the air lock was repressurised? What was it that that blew the astronaut into the airlock - pressurised air from the pod expanding into the vacuum of the airlock. As soon as that air, no matter how low the pressure, reached your ears then you'd hear it.


----------



## BAYLOR

mosaix said:


> There is no air in space - correct, but where there is an explosion then there is an expanding gas cloud so you _would_ hear it as soon as that gas cloud reached your ears. *2001 a Space Odyssey* got it wrong. Remember the exploding bolts to get back into the air lock? No sound from the explosion? Would there really be no affect on the ear drums from the explosion? Also, no sound until the air lock was repressurised? What was it that that blew the astronaut into the airlock - pressurised air from the pod expanding into the vacuum of the airlock. As soon as that air, no matter how low the pressure, reached your ears then you'd hear it.




And could David Bowman have really held his breath in the vacuum of space? Wouldn't it have caused his blood to boil, wouldn't he have exploded and frozen solid in the absolute zero of space?


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

BAYLOR said:


> And could David Bowman have really held his breath in the vacuum of space? Wouldn't it have caused his blood to boil, wouldn't he have exploded and frozen solid in the absolute zero of space?



There is no absolute zero of space. Space doesn't have a temperature. You can gain or lose heat by radiation or conduction (convection is a special form of conduction). Conduction requires you to be touching something, to conduct heat. So in space, all you have is radiation. So you will lose heat as fast as you can radiate it, which is not very fast. Things in space that are cold, are cold because they've been there a while and have radiated away all their heat. Not because space is cold.


----------



## BAYLOR

Bizmuth said:


> There is no absolute zero of space. Space doesn't have a temperature. You can gain or lose heat by radiation or conduction (convection is a special form of conduction). Conduction requires you to be touching something, to conduct heat. So in space, all you have is radiation. So you will lose heat as fast as you can radiate it, which is not very fast. Things in space that are cold, are cold because they've been there a while and have radiated away all their heat. Not because space is cold.



What about  Bowman holding his breath in space?  That's actually survivable ?


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

BAYLOR said:


> What about  Bowman holding his breath in space?  That's actually survivable ?



NASA actually did studies of how long people could survive vacuum. It's not instant death, but then it's not minutes either. I'm pretty sure he'd have survived for the 15 seconds or so he was in vacuum. As for "holding your breath", have you ever tried hyperventilating then forcing all your breath _out_ before going underwater? I used to do it as a child. You can last almost as long underwater, and you can move faster because of lower buoyancy. Not that buoyancy would have affected Bowman, but he could have forced all the air out of his lungs before popping the hatch.


----------



## Mirannan

BAYLOR said:


> What about  Bowman holding his breath in space?  That's actually survivable ?



I would imagine not, for the same reason that sailors escaping from a submarine shouldn't attempt to hold their breath. The unbalanced pressure inside the lungs would probably do fatal damage to them.


----------



## BAYLOR

Venusian Broon said:


> A black hole is just like any other massive object - like a star - in most respects. You can _easily _safely orbit them (aren't all galaxies supposed to have supermassive black holes in their centres? And in the same way we all don't get sucked into the mass of the sun, do we?) It's only if you reach the event horizon that you reach the point of no return and they can be very small. The event horizon for a black hole the mass of the sun would be of radius 3 km - although the Sun's mass would be insufficient to actually create a black hole - a larger star that would theoretically make a black hole could have an event horizon not that much bigger. Very easy to avoid in a spaceship



Too small to be a gate way which brings up another point. How  they could possibly be gateway into another universe?  It seems to me that it's  a dead end, quite literally.  Whatever flies into it is going to crushed down to nothing .


----------



## Venusian Broon

BAYLOR said:


> I don't see how it possible that they could be gateway into another universe. It's a dead end,  whatever flies into it is going to crushed down to nothing.



This is off the top of my head, but there have been certain theories that suggest some sort of gateways (possibly like a 'wormhole' but generated near the event horizon of the blackhole) that if a spacecraft were to survive the tidal forces of extreme gravity and flying in at the right angle, could access. 

Where that spacecraft would end up....???? Why not another universe.

Also, again this is from some dim and distant memory, there are theories that our entire universe is in fact contained within the event horizon of a parent black hole and that in fact there is some sort of 'evolutionary' process, because each black hole that forms spawns a new universe - and there will be a high probability that we will be in a universe that can generate lots of black holes. 

Both lovely SF ideas, but I don't see how we can really test them


----------



## BAYLOR

*Independence Day * They fly a captured alien ship  to the main mothership (which is a stretch  in and off it self)  , download a  virus which disables  the shields on all the invading ships so that we can defeat the aliens    Considering how different the hardware and software is, there is no just no possible way that this works.


----------



## mosaix

BAYLOR said:


> *Independence Day * They fly a captured alien ship  to the main mothership (which is a stretch  in and off it self)  , download a  virus which disables  the shields on all the invading ships so that we can defeat the aliens    Considering how different the hardware and software is, there is no just no possible way that this works.



Yep, complete nonsense. As if two man made computers could establish a comms link straight off and without problems, never mind a man made computer and an alien computer.


----------



## ralphkern

Gravity: The orbital cloud of debris. While I did enjoy that film, that was way off. The orbit of the astronauts likely would have been Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and it's suggested they are in a 90 minute orbit. The cloud of debris was then stated to reach them every 90 minutes as well - so would have been going twice as fast as them. That would have, due to orbital mechanics, lifted the debris to a much higher altitude and therefore beyond where it would have harmed them. 

Even if the missile which caused all that had struck a satellite below them somehow causing the debris to reach their speed. They would have simply had a big cloud of junk following, or ahead, of them. 

But it was a good film.


----------



## Venusian Broon

ralphkern said:


> The cloud of debris was then stated to reach them every 90 minutes as well - so would have been going twice as fast as them. That would have, due to orbital mechanics, lifted the debris to a much higher altitude and therefore beyond where it would have harmed them.
> 
> Even if the missile which caused all that had struck a satellite below them somehow causing the debris to reach their speed. They would have simply had a big cloud of junk following, or ahead, of them.



Not seen the film, but....

<_Science Pedant says_> mmmm... depends what you actually mean by 'faster', but surely _lower _orbits have higher orbital velocities. So if faster, debris would be on a lower altitude to them. Yes, one has to accelerate out to 'break orbit' but when it stabilises on a new one, if you are further out you will be going slower (from Kepler's third - Velocity will be approximately proportional to one over the square root of the orbital radius)...<_/Science pedant gets put back in box_> 

...but yes I take your point, if the velocity of the cloud of debris is different from the astronauts they shouldn't be on the same orbit...



Perhaps, to paraphrase Spock in _Wrath of Khan: _"His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking". What about if the debris is on the same orbital period but be on different planes? Therefore every 90 minutes the astronauts and the debris - which is going on all sorts of different routes around Earth merrily avoiding each other  - basically all return to the original spot of the explosion? Hence giving you a potential collision every 90 minutes?


----------



## Vertigo

BAYLOR said:


> *Independence Day * They fly a captured alien ship  to the main mothership (which is a stretch  in and off it self)  , download a  virus which disables  the shields on all the invading ships so that we can defeat the aliens    Considering how different the hardware and software is, there is no just no possible way that this works.


Yes - that always really bugged me in that film (along with loads of other stuff).

As for the original question; how long have you got?  The list would be too long to type! But for just one how about Avatar (or maybe we just shouldn't get started on that one) I mean... Unobtanium... please!


----------



## Jennifer L. Carson

Mission to Mars.  That one had me hopping up and down in my seat with its genetics "science."  I really could not keep still every time they opened their mouths to spout some DNA hocus pocus.  I think I narrated the movie in a whisper to my husband.  Good thing no one was around us in the theater that day!


----------



## ralphkern

Venusian Broon said:


> Perhaps, to paraphrase Spock in _Wrath of Khan: _"His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking". What about if the debris is on the same orbital period but be on different planes? Therefore every 90 minutes the astronauts and the debris - which is going on all sorts of different routes around Earth merrily avoiding each other - basically all return to the original spot of the explosion? Hence giving you a potential collision every 90 minutes?



I take your point on that one, but that would perhaps rely on so many coincidences? Plus in order for the threat to be at a 90 minutes period, on the button... The explosions and the astronauts would have had to start off at the same location. It could, at a push, and here's where we have to acknowledge the simple size of even LEO, account for one pass, but the chances of the two orbiters intersecting again wouldn't be for weeks, months, years or even longer. (and again a very large coincidence it happened on the first orbit).

And JLC, one of our 'fun' drunken games at uni was to turn the sound down and speak the parts of characters. Mission to Mars should've been on the list


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

What I could never figure out about Mission to Mars (besides the plot, the pseudo-scientific claims, etc) was the sound-track. It sounded like someone had taken it straight out of a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. I mean, the rest of the movie looks like it had a pretty decent budget, but then the background music is done by some drunk guy on a theremin?


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> Yes - that always really bugged me in that film (along with loads of other stuff).
> 
> As for the original question; how long have you got?  The list would be too long to type! But for just one how about Avatar (or maybe we just shouldn't get started on that one) I mean... Unobtanium... please!



Avatars fair game as is everything else.


----------



## BAYLOR

Bizmuth said:


> What I could never figure out about Mission to Mars (besides the plot, the pseudo-scientific claims, etc) was the sound-track. It sounded like someone had taken it straight out of a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. I mean, the rest of the movie looks like it had a pretty decent budget, but then the background music is done by some drunk guy on a theremin?




The music in that film was godawful , then again so was the whole film.


----------



## BAYLOR

Bizmuth said:


> What I could never figure out about Mission to Mars (besides the plot, the pseudo-scientific claims, etc) was the sound-track. It sounded like someone had taken it straight out of a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. I mean, the rest of the movie looks like it had a pretty decent budget, but then the background music is done by some drunk guy on a theremin?



You might find the 1968 film *Mission Mars* to be even less plausible.  They explore mars with Space suits that are obviously not pressurized at all.


----------



## Venusian Broon

BAYLOR said:


> You might find the 1968 film *Mission Mars* to be even less plausible.  They explore mars with Space suits that are obviously not pressurized at all.



Or the moment in Space 1999 when one of the lead Eagle pilots (Alan?) was tackling a monster in the very-near vacuum of the moon* in his space suit when his visor casually flipped up and down to reveal his bare face as he did slo-mo fighting with it. 

* Moon atmosphere snippet - did you know that the Apollo missions caused the atmosphere of the Moon to increase by a couple orders of magnitude. Which sounds impressive, but it was because there was virtually nothing there in the first place, so it didn't take much exhaust and leakage to multiply it! I think it's probably all gone by now and back to virtually nothing...


----------



## Jennifer L. Carson

Ahhh, yes, Space 1999. Back when I was so desperate for anything sf that it looked good to me.  And very cool tidbit, Venusian Broon!



ralphkern said:


> And JLC, one of our 'fun' drunken games at uni was to turn the sound down and speak the parts of characters. Mission to Mars should've been on the list



Hey I did that game, too. Well sort of.  While we were waiting for the mess to open for dinner I would put Star Trek on in the lounge. The sound was crap so we'd narrate for them.  Sadly no booze.  Will play quote game for chocolate, though.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

> Yep, complete nonsense. As if two man made computers could establish a comms link straight off and without problems, never mind a man made computer and an alien computer.



unless... the aliens are really ourselves...


----------



## Ray McCarthy

> As if two man made computers could establish a comms link straight off and without problems


Not so hard as it used to be.  The Aliens in my SF on the "professional" radios have EVERY transmission mode known (Software Defined Radio does exist, I have a Radio that can do most of the modes we know*) to them over the last 5,000 years.
It does take them a few hours to figure Analogue TV and a lot  longer for TCP/IP, UTF, ASCII, JPEG, Digital TV, fonts etc ...
I'm familiar with every data, fax, voice, Radio, TV, networking since about 1840s** so I tried to put this in a realistic but non-infodump / non-boring way.
* Actual modulation is based on mathematics, mathematically modulations such as  OOK/ASK, AM, FSK, PM (NBFM), WBFM, GMSK, PSK, QAM, APSK, OFDM etc and various kinds of Digital data multiplexing, Error correcting are logical progressions of complexity.  "Blind Scan" on a modern satellite receiver searches for signals, figures bandwidth, then modulation type and then other parameters such as symbol rate, APSK levels, FEC etc, then MPEG types in the data stream. All by software. Some of the data can be faked or spoofed TCP/IP as down half of a datalink, then a modem can "know" which uplink frequency, time slot, modulation, symbol rate and FEC to transmit back on. Communications between spacecraft will use same principles, even if laser based.

** I'm so glad having to figure RS232, RS485, RS422, Token Ring, Arcnet, Netbeui  etc is rare now.


----------



## Jennifer L. Carson

Okay, just watched Dark Matter.  Why did the missiles, fired in space with no obstacles between the firing ship and the target ship to a nicely photogenic curve to orient on the target ship (this was before it moved)?

Why did a guy who clear identified as being the weapons genius fire an energy weapon directly at the big-ass cargo door?  Was he LOOKING to get knocked over?  And why, once he did he fire a gun at a cargo door, which he clearly hoped would put a hole in it, did it not put holes in him when it ricocheted back and sent him flying quite literally off his feet.  How is it he got up again with no damage once he woke up from it?

Inquiring minds want to know...


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Because in Films they only care about it looking cool, not accuracy?


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

Prometheus featured a scientist crewmember removing his helmet after summarily "testing the chemical composition of the atmosphere"


----------



## BAYLOR

*Frequency* 2000  staring Dennis Quad and James  Caviezel  . Man talks to 30 years dead deceased  father on ham radio .  it's more in the realm of fantasy . But I like this film a lot.


----------



## BAYLOR

*Them* 1954 world get terrorized by Giant Ants which were created by The radiation from Nuclear test 10 years prior.  This one has a number implausibilities . First Giant ants or insects are impossibility because they don't lungs,  they breath through pores in their skin, for a tiny organism that one inch or less , that system of respiration works fine but, the larger the organism the less efficient this method of breathing. A giant ant 9 feet long would not be able to get oxygen , it. would suffocate. Now even if we ignored the respiration issues there is still the fact that ti only 10 years to grow gigantic , not possible in any way shape  or form , also also why wouldn't there have been a lots nest with ants of intermediate sizes?


----------



## JoanDrake

Stephen Palmer said:


> unless... the aliens are really ourselves...



OOOO....neat idea. Especially as it has some bearing on the otherwise near absolute inexplicability of why they attacked us like they did in the first place. I'm gonna steal it. Don't worry, I treat ideas I abduct kindly (I have so few of my own) and they're free to go home whenever they wish


----------



## JoanDrake

One that bothers me so bad I've actually bitched about it on here before is the fact that the clones in Orphan Black are detected by their all having identical fingerprints. That wouldn't happen, Fingerprints aren't genetic, they're created by absolutely random processes, (they're whorls in the thicker skin on our hands and feet) and that's why there's such certainty there are no duplicates. If they were genetic we'd be misidentifying innocents with their guilty relatives, especially twins, all the time

The problem is that it isn't something trivial, it's a very central plot point, and the show is so very excellent otherwise.


----------



## BAYLOR

hardsciencefanagain said:


> Prometheus featured a scientist crewmember removing his helmet after summarily "testing the chemical composition of the atmosphere"



There were not many  bright bulbs in that whole crew.


----------



## Venusian Broon

BAYLOR said:


> There were not many  bright bulbs in that whole crew.



Yes, it also irritated me that the geologist who had brought gizmos to map the space of the alien weapons storage space, left the party first with the biologist (why did he leave when he found evidence of something alien and animal - wasn't that his frickin' job to study such things ?!?!?) and got lost on the way back to the ship - being beat back by the rest of them somehow... 

One could possibly argue that such mistakes _might_ all add up, but no, I found it all a bit silly.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

go see this one VEEB


----------



## hardsciencefanagain

I remember dust settling like there was gravity in ARMAGEDDON
Uhm..
the lack of inertia during high speed manoeuvres?
er...
*not* counting Transformers?


----------



## J Riff

Well, try _The Astounding She Monster_. 1957? ... in which the 'rulers of the Galaxy' send a beautiful gal to Earth - to grant us admission to the Galactic Federation. The Earthers manage to kill the gal, but there is a note, a hand-written note on a little piece of paper, inside her locket. A note from the Galactic rulers. A hand-written note, not a radio message or a UFO, just a note. I can't get over it. )


----------



## BAYLOR

Venusian Broon said:


> Yes, it also irritated me that the geologist who had brought gizmos to map the space of the alien weapons storage space, left the party first with the biologist (why did he leave when he found evidence of something alien and animal - wasn't that his frickin' job to study such things ?!?!?) and got lost on the way back to the ship - being beat back by the rest of them somehow...
> 
> One could possibly argue that such mistakes _might_ all add up, but no, I found it all a bit silly.




Your in an alien space ship you encounter a mysterious snakelike animal life form that you know nothing about and you decide to pet it? Not the best Idea.


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> Well, try _The Astounding She Monster_. 1957? ... in which the 'rulers of the Galaxy' send a beautiful gal to Earth - to grant us admission to the Galactic Federation. The Earthers manage to kill the gal, but there is a note, a hand-written note on a little piece of paper, inside her locket. A note from the Galactic rulers. A hand-written note, not a radio message or a UFO, just a note. I can't get over it. )



A written note,  that one is pretty bad .  Of course is was a B movie with a limited budget. 

And why would  they send a representative whose touch that can causes instant death ? Wouldn't that defeat the whole message of  " We come in Peace" ? And why land in the boonies where you will likely run into people who will misunderstand you , wouldn't have been a better idea to land at the UN building  ?


----------



## BAYLOR

*The First Spaceship on Venus* 1959    A ship from Earth finds the remains of an advanced civilization on Venus.  Im thinking  that around this time , scientist already had a idea that Venus was inhospitable to any kind of life.


----------



## Venusian Broon

BAYLOR said:


> *The First Spaceship on Venus* 1959    A ship from Earth finds the remains of an advanced civilization on Venus.  Im thinking  that around this time , scientist already had a idea that Venus was inhospitable to any kind of life.



Apparently it was still in debate on what lay beneath the Venusian clouds at that time, although there had been some readings from Earth observations, many still thought they might not be correct. It was the first pass-by from a probe in 1962, a few years after that movie, that settled that there was no steaming hot jungle there, but a dry _extremely _hot hell instead.


----------



## BAYLOR

Venusian Broon said:


> Apparently it was still in debate on what lay beneath the Venusian clouds at that time, although there had been some readings from Earth observations, many still thought they might not be correct. It was the first pass-by from a probe in 1962, a few years after that movie, that settled that there was no steaming hot jungle there, but a dry _extremely _hot hell instead.



I seem to recall an old documentary piece on Venus with Carl Sagan taking an atmospheric analysis.


----------



## Jennifer L. Carson

Anyone watching the TV show Dark Matter?  Just watched the episode where they had to fix some kind of coupler.  Problem was, it was outside the ship.  I didn't think twice about this till they finally went outside to fix it...then I had a problem with it.  First it was in a corridor defined on at least three sides (essentially a hall with an end wall, forth wall was never visible).  Overhead were joists/struts on the sides and across the gap, making the "roof" area look like it had large panels missing.  So my first question is, why did they make a corridor that was 4/5th the way to being enclosed?  Why not throw those panels in place and enclose it?  Especially since (second complaint) it was lined with what appeared to be access panels to ship systems (and indeed, the robot character fixing the coupler opened one of these up to reveal said part, so I can only assume all the panels are for that purpose).  So again I ask...why not enclose the last 5th of the corridor so you can fix it from the safety of the ship and not have to wear a suit for a space walk?  Thirdly & finally (and the reason, no doubt, the the repair corridor was open), owing to radiation-generated electrical surges across the hull, the robot character gets zapped into shutting down.  Crew members go out and get her.  When they get there, they switch off the electromagnetic boots holding her to the hull.  I wasn't sure, so I asked hubby, "Would they still be working if all her other electronic components got a big enough jolt to shut down?"  He didn't think so.  Any one else on that subject?  I know computer components can be more delicate.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

From Galaxy Quest: _What is this thing? I mean there's no useful purpose for there to be a bunch of choppy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway!_

Whenever some book or show presents some stupid plot device to force a scenario, I remember the choppy, crushy things.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

My favourite parody of all that's daft on TV /Cinema so called SF.


----------



## BigBadBob141

In the recent film "Elysium" a shuttle craft is shown approaching a wheel shaped space habitat.
Instead of docking at the axis it fly's inside the ring, it's then that you see there is no inner wall.
It lands inside on the inner side of the outer wall where all the houses would be.
I suppose the idea is that the  side walls would be keeping the air in but I can't see this happening in real life, if there nothing to contain the air it would just leak straight into space.
Larry Niven did the same thing in "Ringworld" but the walls there were hundreds of miles high.
P.S. A chap I know at work said one of the reasons he divorced his first wife was that after watching the space walking scene in the film "Destination Moon" she said that's silly you could not do that because the wind would blow you away!!!


----------



## Ray McCarthy

BigBadBob141 said:


> side walls would be keeping the air in


You'd need impracticable rotation speed!
Also the diameter of Ringworld allows illusion of 1G approx without excessive Coriolis forces. Though no currently known material is strong enough to make ringworld.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ray McCarthy said:


> You'd need impracticable rotation speed!
> Also the diameter of Ringworld allows illusion of 1G approx without excessive Coriolis forces. Though no currently known material is strong enough to make ringworld.



Then there's the problem of what to do about potential asteroid and meteorite collisions on the ring.


----------



## JunkMonkey

My most recent "Duh Wha...?" moment came in*  Lockout * (2012) - an overlong (it was 95 minutes and felt like two hours) violent piece of action sh*t which proved, yet again, that all futuristic prison movies are crap.

As a measure of the overwhelming stupidity of the script I offer in evidence the fact that our heroes' bosses, safe on-board an orbiting police station and closely monitoring the situation, only notice the gigantic orbiting space prison has deviated from its usual orbit and is plunging towards the earth *after *it has collided with, and totalled, the International Space Station....

Later the hero and heroine jump out of the plummeting space prison (wearing space suits) and start to fall to earth *faster than it is falling*. (Huh? I'm really not sure how that works but the script writers obviously couldn't think of another way to get our protagonists out of the way of the cataclysmic explosion about to occur - the usual bomb with a digital display timer on the outside - YAWN!)

I apologise if I have posted this here before but my favourite all time science Duh! moment is this cracker from *Manhunt in Space*  (Two Rocky Jones TV episodes nailed together into the rough simulacrum of a movie.) in which Professor Newton's Cold Light Device, is explained, almost thusly, by heroic Rocky Jones to his comedy side-kick 'Winky'

Quote:
"The filament in the vacuum tube is quickly bought to a temperature of about minus 342 degrees centigrade. Heat can affect us so that images that can't normally be seen, _can_ be seen by the human eye - like the mirages that appear in a hot desert. Intense cold can have the opposite effect and blot out images that are actually there. When this is switched on, the rays sent out by the terribly cold light will surround the spaceship and make it invisible."

Why this incredibly cold ray doesn't freeze the tits off anyone within a couple of miles, or coat the ship in a frosting of ice when it lands on a planet with atmosphere is never explained - though it may be the reason I can never find anything in my freezer when I'm looking for it.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

JunkMonkey said:


> temperature of about minus 342 degrees centigrade.


That's clever
Out the other side of absolute zero. (-273.13 C approx)

You are looking at 1000 C to 2000 C for a vacuum tube filament depending on type
http://www.john-a-harper.com/tubes201/


----------



## JunkMonkey

Rocky Jones was a good place for WTF? science moments, in *Crash of the Moons* (1954), another TV movie nailed together from episodes, our hero dons a space suit to deal with a red hot meteorite (in interstellar space?) that has become attached to his ship's tail planes. He deals with it by taking a fire hose out the airlock and squirting the thing with water - then shooting it with a hand gun till it falls off. 

I nearly hurt myself laughing.


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> Rocky Jones was a good place for WTF? science moments, in *Crash of the Moons* (1954), another TV movie nailed together from episodes, our hero dons a space suit to deal with a red hot meteorite (in interstellar space?) that has become attached to his ship's tail planes. He deals with it by taking a fire hose out the airlock and squirting the thing with water - then shooting it with a hand gun till it falls off.
> 
> I nearly hurt myself laughing.



Ive seen  a few episodes of Rocky Jones. It did make attempts at being as scientifically as  accurate as the tv executive would allow.  Though It is marginally better then most other science fiction  tv offerings in that era, it is still a very painful tv show to watch.


----------



## JunkMonkey

BAYLOR said:


> Ive seen  a few episodes of Rocky Jones. It did make attempts at being as scientifically as  accurate as the tv executive would allow.  Though It is marginally better then most other science fiction  tv offerings in that era, it is still a very painful tv show to watch.



Patsy Parson as the scheming Cleolanta was fun to watch:


----------



## Vladd67

Any remember that series from the late 70s about a guy who builds a spacecraft from gear in his junk yard to collect the debris left behind by the American space programmes still in orbit and on the moon?


----------



## BAYLOR

Vladd67 said:


> Any remember that series from the late 70s about a guy who builds a spacecraft from gear in his junk yard to collect the debris left behind by the American space programmes still in orbit and on the moon?



*Salvage 1*   starring Andy Griffith


----------



## JunkMonkey

Again!  The number of times this gets asked about is amazing.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

BAYLOR said:


> Then there's the problem of what to do about potential asteroid and meteorite collisions on the ring.



Ringworld had an automated asteroid defense system. That's why they crashed in the first place-- they got zapped on approach.


----------



## BAYLOR

*When Worlds Collide* 1951  I love this films but it has a few issues. first off the two planets(Bellos and Zyra ) on a collision  course with earth would take many thousands years to reach  the inner solar system from  deep space. not  one year in the movie ?  Also the planets would likely never get to the inner solar system because of the of Jupiter , Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, one them would likely be in an orbital position pull (Bellos and Zyra) away from Earth. Or The to planets would be captured by the Sun Gravity and into orbit in the solar system.


----------



## Vertigo

Not seen the film so I don't know how they played it, but I guess there's no particular reason they couldn't have been coming in from well out of the ecliptic, in which case much less chance of the gas giants effecting them.


----------



## BAYLOR

What does a 400 foot monster like Godzilla eat to sustain himself? Plankton maybe?


----------



## JunkMonkey

Vertigo said:


> Not seen the film so I don't know how they played it, but I guess there's no particular reason they couldn't have been coming in from well out of the ecliptic, in which case much less chance of the gas giants effecting them.



That works for me.



BAYLOR said:


> What does a 400 foot monster like Godzilla eat to sustain himself? Plankton maybe?



Smaller monsters.


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> That works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Smaller monsters.




Yes but Godzilla rivals are all about the same size as him.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Well yeah. Duh!  Who would want to watch a film about Godzilla having his lunch?  Of course they only made films about the times it fought back.


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> Well yeah. Duh!  Who would want to watch a film about Godzilla having his lunch?  Of course they only made films about the times it fought back.



They could at least have been scientifically accurate

And then theres the implausibility of King Kong vs Godzilla . How could a 400 foot Monster lose to a 22 foot ape .


----------



## JunkMonkey

BAYLOR said:


> They could at least have been scientifically accurate
> 
> And then theres the implausibility of King Kong vs Godzilla . How could a 400 foot Monster lose to a 22 foot ape .



Steroids?


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> Steroids?




That fits.


----------



## BAYLOR

Then there are the light sabers in Star Wars.  Wouldn't two light beams pass through one another and how do you limit the length of a beam of light to swords length?


----------



## SilentRoamer

I am not sure if this was mentioned but the Orbital mechanics of a Ringworld type structure don't add up - it just would not be stable and would crash into the planet.

A couple of friends were adamant about the science in Interstellar - I found it pretty funny. Attaching Kip Thorne to something doesn't mean 5 dimensional tesseracts buried beyond the Event Horizon of an artificial Black Hole are any more "scientific".


----------



## Ray McCarthy

SilentRoamer said:


> would crash into the planet.


The sun.
He "fixed" it in the next book in the series, by mentioning the thrusters mounted around top and bottom edge.


----------



## SilentRoamer

Thanks Ray - I meant the sun my, fingers must have been in autotype mode.

Time travel always bothers me in SF even when well done. Like I try and imagine the power needed to rewind the entire Universe by however long is needed. I can't accept it as some local phenomenon although I suppose you could limit it to Solar System size, maybe.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

SilentRoamer said:


> Time travel always bothers me in SF even when well done.


I didn't mind it when a teenager, though even then the paradoxes detracted. Now I can't be bothered with the effort to suspend disbelief. It's IMO pure magical fantasy, not SF at all. The exceptions being relativistic difference for fast travellers and planet bound and travel to future via coma / hibernation / deep sleep. There is no going back, causality. No Ground Hog Day etc.

I can't really even think of the "well done" example, off hand.


----------



## BigBadBob141

REF: SilentRoamer
An interesting take on time travel are the series of stories in "The Flight Of The Horse" by Larry Niven.
The main part of the machine stays anchored in it's present while an extension cage is projected into the past.
However things are not quite as they seem, as the cage travels backwards it slips sidewise across into alternate realities.
So you are not travelling into your own past and thus avoid paradoxes, shooting your own grandfather before he meets your grandmother ect. 
This explains the strange things that happen in the stories, I wont spoil it for you by saying what, you'll have to read them for yourselves.
It's also mentioned in one of the stories that independent machines that are not anchored get lost and can never get back to there own reality.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

BigBadBob141 said:


> it slips sidewise across into alternate realities.


I don't buy alternate realities in SF, only in Fantasy 
I'm sure that interpretation of Quantum mechanics is crazy.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

BAYLOR said:


> Then there are the light sabers in Star Wars.  Wouldn't two light beams pass through one another and how do you limit the length of a beam of light to swords length?


 
I don't think it has to be made of light just because it's called a 'light' saber. Maybe that means "not heavy" 

I have something similar in my current WIP, but it's a magnetically contained high-energy plasma (thus the glow).


----------



## SilentRoamer

I'm fairly sure light sabres are called such because they use a high energy proton beam which is a posh way of saying laser. IIRC the different colours originate from the crystals the sabres are made from.

Even if we are talking about some magnetically charged plasma the point still stands that there is nothing to contain the Plasma at the tip of the sabre. There is no conceivable reason for either light, or plasma, or anything else to stop at an arbitrary length without a mechanism to do so.

Anyway trying to explain light sabres results in the same cognitive failures I experience when someone mentions midi-chlorians. "Midi... say what now?"

Lol


----------



## SilentRoamer

Ray McCarthy said:


> I don't buy alternate realities in SF, only in Fantasy
> I'm sure that interpretation of Quantum mechanics is crazy.



Yeah I remember watching an episode of Jonathan Ross and Brian Cox was a guest. He decided to talk about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory and then stated - as a fact, that somewhere in a parallel Universe Liverpool FC won that Premier League season. I was literally screaming at the television and then spent days and days convincing friends that Cox was merely stipulating, on one interpretation, on a non-falsifiable theory.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

SilentRoamer said:


> Liverpool FC won that Premier League season.


I know nothing about Liverpool FC and have a hazy idea that Premier League is something "players" make money out of and Sky makes money out of, but otherwise it's a mystery to me.


----------



## BAYLOR

SilentRoamer said:


> I'm fairly sure light sabres are called such because they use a high energy proton beam which is a posh way of saying laser. IIRC the different colours originate from the crystals the sabres are made from.
> 
> Even if we are talking about some magnetically charged plasma the point still stands that there is nothing to contain the Plasma at the tip of the sabre. There is no conceivable reason for either light, or plasma, or anything else to stop at an arbitrary length without a mechanism to do so.
> 
> Anyway trying to explain light sabres results in the same cognitive failures I experience when someone mentions midi-chlorians. "Midi... say what now?"
> 
> Lol



Yes Midi Chlorians was one of my next topic of importability.

Also the Deathstar's main weapon the 3 beams fire toward the center merge into one bigger beam and demolish Princess Leah's planet Alderan . So what is the the focusing mechanism where the beams converge?


----------



## Ray McCarthy

BAYLOR said:


> So what is the the focusing mechanism where the beams converge?


Magic.


BAYLOR said:


> Chlorians was one of my next topic of importability.


They don't actually exist. The Force is Magic, it's propaganda 
The Bene Gesserit ARE Witches. It's not advanced psychology.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ray McCarthy said:


> Magic.
> 
> They don't actually exist. The Force is Magic, it's propaganda
> The Bene Gesserit ARE Witches. It's not advanced psychology.



Careful the MidiChlorians might hear you. They take a very dim view of people who don't believe in them.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

you don't haze me with your jedi-gesserit mind tricks @BAYLOR


----------



## BAYLOR

Ray McCarthy said:


> you don't haze me with your jedi-gesserit mind tricks @BAYLOR



Beware the Dark side of the Voice young Paul Luke.


----------



## JunkMonkey

SilentRoamer said:


> Yeah I remember watching an episode of Jonathan Ross and Brian Cox was a guest. He decided to talk about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory



It's a measure of my ignorance that it took me ages to twig that you meant:






Brian Cox​

not





Brian Cox​
I was thinking: Wow!  Brian Cox is both a great actor AND he is converse with quantum mechanics!  Some guy!


----------



## Ray McCarthy

JunkMonkey said:


> Brian Cox is both a great actor AND he is converse with quantum mechanics!


Maybe a Schroedinger’s Cat kind of thing, Or Many People Postulate. But if you take a photo or interview, then the wave function collapses and you only get one Brian Cox.


----------



## BAYLOR

The 1959 film *Journey to the Center* of the Earth did the similar thing, they took Iguanas and glued sail fins on them and used them as Dimetrodons. The result wasn't bad at all, they almost looked the part. 

when they did the 1960 film* The Lost World* , they took Monitor Lizards, Iguanas and alligators and glued horns on them and had them stand in for dinosaurs ,This was not all convincing for a lot of very obvious reasons .


----------



## BAYLOR

As much as I like* The Day After Tomorrow *, there is no way a climate shift can happen that dramatically.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Came across a couple of real clangers in series 3 of _Stargate Atlantis_ which I am currently working my way through for the first time. 

In one episode our heroes manfully struggle to close the internal door of a ship venting its atmosphere into space.  Mighty are the grunts as they struggle to push the door shut against the roaring torrent of air streaming through it - which means, if you think about it for more than a couple of seconds, that the hole in the ship was *behind* them (that's where all the air is going) and by shutting the door they were effectively killing themselves.

A couple of episodes later they are in a facility deep at the bottom of the ocean where the pressure would "crush them in seconds" but get out of the facility (in convenient anti-lots of pressure suits they find lying about) through a swimming pool type thing in the floor.  If the outside pressure would crush a human body "in seconds" it would crush the rather less dense atmosphere inside the station in even less time.


----------



## Anne Spackman

BAYLOR said:


> There is no air in space therefore no medium  with which to carry sounds. Lots of science fiction films ignore this one and tv science fiction series as well.
> 
> *2001 a Space Odyssey  *didn't  do sound in space , did try to keep things within the realm of science.



Yes, one of the main inaccuracies in sci-fi films are the sounds of explosions in outer space.  I really like _Star Wars_ films, but the sounds that are made by explosions in the battle scenes and by asteroids crashing into the _Millennium Falcon_ are impossible.  I write science fiction myself, and I think that being entirely scientifically accurate is difficult when you are trying to make the implausible seem real.  You have a certain amount of poetic license that you can get away with, but you better make what you are writing/saying sound good.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Anne Spackman said:


> I really like _Star Wars_ films, but the sounds that are made by explosions in the battle scenes and by asteroids crashing into the _Millennium Falcon_ are impossible.



So's the London Symphony Orchestra playing John William's music very loudly.  (The woodwinds and brass sections especially.)  But no one ever complains about that.  Treat the whooshes, pew! pew!s, and Kabooms! as part of the non-diegetic soundtrack and the problem goes away instantly.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

JunkMonkey said:


> the London Symphony Orchestra playing John William's music very loudly.


I thought that was the 8-track player in the spaceship's Muzak system. (It was long ago, so probably an 8 track?)


----------



## galanx

BAYLOR said:


> And could David Bowman have really held his breath in the vacuum of space? Wouldn't it have caused his blood to boil, wouldn't he have exploded and frozen solid in the absolute zero of space?



One of the classic authors wrote a story where a spaceship is wrecked, and the crew have to jump to a nearby rescue vessel- but unfortunately all their suits were in the part that was destroyed.  The person giving the instructions assures them that in that short time their blood won't boil or lungs explode- the only bad result is they end up with massive sunburns. Don't know how accurate it was.


----------



## galanx

BAYLOR said:


> *Independence Day * They fly a captured alien ship  to the main mothership (which is a stretch  in and off it self)  , download a  virus which disables  the shields on all the invading ships so that we can defeat the aliens    Considering how different the hardware and software is, there is no just no possible way that this works.



Wasn't there an attempt to retcon this by saying (a la Men in Black) that all modern computer technology had been developed from studying the alien crash in Area 51?


----------



## Vertigo

galanx said:


> One of the classic authors wrote a story where a spaceship is wrecked, and the crew have to jump to a nearby rescue vessel- but unfortunately all their suits were in the part that was destroyed.  The person giving the instructions assures them that in that short time their blood won't boil or lungs explode- the only bad result is they end up with massive sunburns. Don't know how accurate it was.


The reality as I understand it is that it's 15-20 seconds to unconsciousness and around 90 seconds to death or permanent damage. But that's assuming you don't try to hold your breath; if you do so I believe your lungs are likely to rupture.


----------



## galanx

Speaking of time travel, the inferior modern remake of The Time Machine when they show the half-dimantled Moon sort of dismembered in the sky, but nothing is moving.


----------



## SilentRoamer

galanx said:


> One of the classic authors wrote a story where a spaceship is wrecked, and the crew have to jump to a nearby rescue vessel- but unfortunately all their suits were in the part that was destroyed.  The person giving the instructions assures them that in that short time their blood won't boil or lungs explode- the only bad result is they end up with massive sunburns. Don't know how accurate it was.



Holding your breath (like you would in water by taking a deep breath) would be a very bad thing to do. You would be better exhaling all possible oxygen - similar to deep sea divers because otherwise the pressure (pressure of the body) would likely burst your lungs and possible eye sockets.

In space water boils, not due to heat but due to low pressure <0.9psi. So all of the bodies water (except that sufficiently pressurised) would begin to boil (ebullism). The rapid decompression comes with its own set of problems which we can see in a lesser form in Divers that ascend too quickly (Nitrogen bubbles on the brain etc.)

The general consensus is that the human body is capable of withstanding vacuum exposure assuming the exposure is short lived and given ideal circumstances - things such as weight and heart rate would have an impact. Tests have been performed on animals that have seen their complete recovery from a 90 second exposure. There have also been accidents involving astronauts and leaky suits and some testimony from their experiences.

So assuming a straight forwards jump out into vacuum then this is entirely possible albeit improbable.

Hope this helps.


----------



## SilentRoamer

Vertigo said it more succinctly!


----------



## BAYLOR

galanx said:


> One of the classic authors wrote a story where a spaceship is wrecked, and the crew have to jump to a nearby rescue vessel- but unfortunately all their suits were in the part that was destroyed.  The person giving the instructions assures them that in that short time their blood won't boil or lungs explode- the only bad result is they end up with massive sunburns. Don't know how accurate it was.



I think I read that story. It was in Arthur C Clark anthology* The Other Side Of The Sky .*


----------



## galanx

Arghhh! I looked for it in Heinlein and Asimov's bibliographies, but gave up before I got to Sir Arthur. "Take a Deep Breath". Some time afterwards,  he wrote that it had received a lot of criticism, but claimed later experiments had vindicated him.


----------



## galanx

SilentRoamer said:


> Holding your breath (like you would in water by taking a deep breath) would be a very bad thing to do. You would be better exhaling all possible oxygen - similar to deep sea divers because otherwise the pressure (pressure of the body) would likely burst your lungs and possible eye sockets.
> 
> In space water boils, not due to heat but due to low pressure <0.9psi. So all of the bodies water (except that sufficiently pressurised) would begin to boil (ebullism). The rapid decompression comes with its own set of problems which we can see in a lesser form in Divers that ascend too quickly (Nitrogen bubbles on the brain etc.)
> 
> The general consensus is that the human body is capable of withstanding vacuum exposure assuming the exposure is short lived and given ideal circumstances - things such as weight and heart rate would have an impact. Tests have been performed on animals that have seen their complete recovery from a 90 second exposure. There have also been accidents involving astronauts and leaky suits and some testimony from their experiences.
> 
> So assuming a straight forwards jump out into vacuum then this is entirely possible albeit improbable.
> 
> Hope this helps.



Yep- thanks. The story -"Take a Deep Breath"; Arthur C. Clarke (tip of the hat to Baylor)- came out in 1957, when Clarke was already an avid scuba diver- wonder if that gave him some basis for the concept.


----------



## Ed Ryder

There's a bit in Mission to Mars where one of the characters declares "it's human chromosome 21!" (or one of them anyway) after seeing about 20 base pairs of DNA on a computer screen, which made me laugh when I saw it much to my friend's annoyance.
Personally I prefer films to be as vague as possible when it comes to science, rather than mention something specific and incorrect as my suspension of disbelief works better then (I'm odd that way). I love Jurassic Park, but it's a bit of classic for doing that.

When it comes to physics however I'm completely ignorant and have no idea, so anything goes there!


----------



## BAYLOR

galanx said:


> Arghhh! I looked for it in Heinlein and Asimov's bibliographies, but gave up before I got to Sir Arthur. "Take a Deep Breath". Some time afterwards,  he wrote that it had received a lot of criticism, but claimed later experiments had vindicated him.



It's one my favorite Arthur C. Clark short stories.


----------



## Khuratokh

Pointing out flaws in The Star Wars universe always seemed to be a pointless exercise. It's more a fantasy setting and has no claims to be accurate in the first place. Lightsabers are one of the more plausible ideas. --

Coruscant is one big city, no mention how a trillion people get their food. 

Naboo has no molten core. It's a giant sponge. 

The Force awakens has a superweapon that drains the sun's energy. Two shots and the sun is gone... now what? 

Also the weapon's shield can't stop objects that move at hyperspace. Kinetic kill anyone? Nope just me.

High powered "lasers" but only manual targeting.
Etc.

Godzilla doesn't need to eat flesh. Toho studios thought this one through: Supposedly he has an internal organic nuclear powerplant. This is actually a plot point in the recent one.

"The Ringworld is unstable!" Was a much heard critique launched at Niven in the 70's. So he attempted to fix that in the Ringworld Engineers. Also it helps that the creators are still there.

Avatar irks me (mostly fron a narrative standpoint. Different topic) this is a planet where every animal, be they mammal or reptillian analogue, has 6 limbs, 2 or 3 sets of eyes, and a usb-stick appendige. Yet the Navi only have 4 limbs and 1 set of eyes and a usb-port. How does something like that evolve?

Unobtainium is an oft used term in SF. The Core had the vessel that could drill through the earth's core. It was also made of unobtainium. Complete with eye-roll from the scientist tthat created it. 

As I studied Archaeology, mistakes or lies in movies really sting. Aliens v predator had the Aztecs build a temple 4000 years ago. Before 1100ad the aztecs didn't exist.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Khuratokh said:


> Aliens v predator had the Aztecs build a temple 4000 years ago. Before 1100ad the aztecs didn't exist.


Obviously time travelling Aztecs


----------



## Mirannan

Ray McCarthy said:


> Obviously time travelling Aztecs



Well, it could have been proto-Aztecs could it not? I don't know much, if indeed anything, about Central American prehistory - but AFAIK there have been no major migrations in that area for a VERY long time.


----------



## Khuratokh

Mirannan said:


> Well, it could have been proto-Aztecs could it not? I don't know much, if indeed anything, about Central American prehistory - but AFAIK there have been no major migrations in that area for a VERY long time.



Could have mentioned the Olmec, who were around at that time. Sort of. Proto Aztec? That makes as much sense as saying Turks built the pyramids. Or the Magna Carta being written up by Jimmy Carter.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ray McCarthy said:


> Obviously time travelling Aztecs



Sounds like Chariots of the Gods.


----------



## Mirannan

Khuratokh said:


> Could have mentioned the Olmec, who were around at that time. Sort of. Proto Aztec? That makes as much sense as saying Turks built the pyramids. Or the Magna Carta being written up by Jimmy Carter.



I told you I knew virtually nothing about the subject.  I've heard of the Olmec, but that's about it.


----------



## Khuratokh

Mirannan said:


> I told you I knew virtually nothing about the subject.  I've heard of the Olmec, but that's about it.


Sorry for the heat. Just my pet peev. Besides they supposedly buikt it in the arctic.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Khuratokh said:


> That makes as much sense as saying Turks built the pyramids.


Now that's an interesting theory, but weren't the people of present day Turkey in those days some very diverse peoples?
proto Celts, proto Greeks, various asians, phoenetians, trojans etc?

Probably not. But certainly no Turks.


----------



## Khuratokh

Ray McCarthy said:


> Now that's an interesting theory, but weren't the people of present day Turkey in those days some very diverse peoples?
> proto Celts, proto Greeks, various asians, phoenetians, trojans etc?
> 
> Probably not. But certainly no Turks.


Kinda my point. Meso-America has a long dynamic history with lots of different peoples. To just stamp "Aztec"  on everything south of Texas, is painfully simplistic, not to mention insulting. 
Also migrations happened all the time, same as everywhere else on the planet. The notion that after the first people crossed over the Bering strait, everyone stayed put, is pretty far of the mark.


----------



## Khuratokh

Back on topic

Lucy recently reinvigorated the notion we only use 10 percent of our brain.

Also everytime they use a defibrillator like a set jump cables. Bringing a silent heart back into pumping condition.

Asteroid thickets. Lots of rocks of varying sizes all within a few metres of each other. 
Gravity usually makes them clump together leaving vast distances between them. So unless a larger body just fractured, this is unlikely to stay this way.


----------



## Dave

galanx said:


> One of the classic authors wrote a story where a spaceship is wrecked, and the crew have to jump to a nearby rescue vessel- but unfortunately all their suits were in the part that was destroyed.  The person giving the instructions assures them that in that short time their blood won't boil or lungs explode- the only bad result is they end up with massive sunburns. Don't know how accurate it was.


If you go to the films forum and find the thread on the original Arny version of "Total Recall" there is a long discussion on this subject based around the "eye-popping" effects in that film with the actual quoting of science articles IIRC. If think the final agreement was that blood won't boil or lungs explode. The eye-popping is unlikely, but then it is also possibly a false memory too!


----------



## J Riff

Oh dear no, absolute zero, or any close approximation of same, will cause brain damage in far less than a minute. Before real spacesuits, there was an accident or two. The only heat would have to come from the friction of falling, if in atmosphere... if in space, forget it.


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> If you go to the films forum and find the thread on the original Arny version of "Total Recall" there is a long discussion on this subject based around the "eye-popping" effects in that film with the actual quoting of science articles IIRC. If think the final agreement was that blood won't boil or lungs explode. The eye-popping is unlikely, but then it is also possibly a false memory too!



On Mars you'd suffocate very quickly in that thin cold air.


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> Oh dear no, absolute zero, or any close approximation of same, will cause brain damage in far less than a minute. Before real spacesuits, there was an accident or two. The only heat would have to come from the friction of falling, if in atmosphere... if in space, forget it.



Also isn't much the Martian atmosphere composed of Carbon?


----------



## Dave

You must have seen the film, right? Either there are ancient Martian machines that produce Oxygen, or, everything is an implanted false memory. You take your pick.


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> You must have seen the film, right? Either there are ancient Martian machines that produce Oxygen, or, everything is an implanted false memory. You take your pick.



Given that it was inspired by a Philip k Dick story , it's a tough choice.


----------



## Camiedee

The Martian is a great movie, and as far as I saw, there was only one major scientific flaw, that being the Mars storm


----------



## J Riff

Lots air on Mars, none in space. The instant transition to a low enough  temperature will knock a human being cold in a second. But, in those movies where the air is leaking out while everyone yells, eyebugs, and inflates... well I've never seen that, except in movies. It seems to me that the heat would disappear but pronto, even before the air was gone?


----------



## galanx

Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere, and the temperature in daytime is 427C/800C in the daytiime, though down to -170C /-280F at night. It depends how much energy the object in question is exposed to, not whether there's an atmosphere to conduct it. A spaceship flying close to the sun needs a heat shield even though it's in a vacuum.

NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us - Space Physics - Heat, Temperature, and the Electromagnetic Spectrum

Scroll down to answers 5 and 6.



J Riff said:


> Oh dear no, absolute zero, or any close approximation of same, will cause brain damage in far less than a minute. Before real spacesuits, there was an accident or two. The only heat would have to come from the friction of falling, if in atmosphere... if in space, forget it.


----------



## psikeyhackr

J Riff said:


> Lots air on Mars, none in space. The instant transition to a low enough  temperature will knock a human being cold in a second.



The air pressure on Mars is about 1% that of Earth.  That is why the storm at the beginning of The Martian is nonsense.  But the vacuum of space means that radiation is the only way to lose heat.   The Enterprise in TNG lost heat too fast when the environmental systems went out.

psik


----------



## Mirannan

psikeyhackr said:


> The air pressure on Mars is about 1% that of Earth.  That is why the storm at the beginning of The Martian is nonsense.  But the vacuum of space means that radiation is the only way to lose heat.   The Enterprise in TNG lost heat to fast when the environmental systems went out.
> 
> psik



Yup. If anything, the temperature on Enterprise ought to have been going up. Lots of power generation ultimately ending up as heat, a big ship (low ratio of area to volume) which was light-coloured - which also decreases radiative heat loss.


----------



## J Riff

Oh don't believe that stuff about Mars, plenty O2 up there, they just keep it out of sight. But, high altitude depressurization, without a sealed spacesuit - ? done for in seconds. High meaning 8 miles high. The movie stuff I still wonder about. Seems highly unlikely that even Arnie could live thru it.


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> Oh don't believe that stuff about Mars, plenty O2 up there, they just keep it out of sight. But, high altitude depressurization, without a sealed spacesuit - ? done for in seconds. High meaning 8 miles high. The movie stuff I still wonder about. Seems highly unlikely that even Arnie could live thru it.



What about below the surface of Mars?


----------



## J Riff

That's the best place to hide it. And, yknow.... water, plants, Martians.... *


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> That's the best place to hide it. And, yknow.... water, plants, Martians.... *



Life below the ground wouldn't that be wonderful.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Talking of _Total Recall_ I just watched the bloody awful 2012 remake and wondered if the writers or producers had EVER stepped into an elevator.  For those of you who haven't seen it (trust me, you have better things to do with your time) the plot revolves around a tunnel through the centre of the earth connecting Australia and Britain.  There is a huge shuttle that can go from one to the other in minutes.  It called 'the Fall' because that's what it does.  It falls right through the centre of the earth and arrives at it's destination to be clamped into place to stop it falling back again before everyone has got off.  (Presumably some extra energy is pumped into the system somewhere of the thing would never make it back to the top again.)  Now here's the thing. Falling.  This thing is in freefall.  It's contents must be in freefall too.  Not in this move they ain't.  There's a point in the middle of the earth where the gravity suddenly STOPS and the passenger compartments rotate 180 degrees (so people don't arrive at their destination upside down) - and then it's back to 1G all the way up!


----------



## Khuratokh

Battlefield Earth. So much wrong on so many levels.
F-16 jets that have been sitting in a bunker for over 2000 years that only  require fuel to fly. Fuel that is also 2000 years old. 
Considering how often F-16 fail even with regular maintenance and that jet fuel deteriorates over time, this takes the cake.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Nit Pick mode:  they were Harrier Jump Jets.


----------



## J Riff

I guess that's the 'Fiction' part of SF... )


----------



## BAYLOR

Khuratokh said:


> Battlefield Earth. So much wrong on so many levels.
> F-16 jets that have been sitting in a bunker for over 2000 years that only  require fuel to fly. Fuel that is also 2000 years old.
> Considering how often F-16 fail even with regular maintenance and that jet fuel deteriorates over time, this takes the cake.



In the book they used Psychlo space ship and not Jets. Jets after 2000 years would be corroded beyond recognition and even if the the planes somehow miraclulously survived  intact Tthe electronics an  much of the wiring would dry corrode and crumble to dust.


----------



## JunkMonkey

BAYLOR said:


> In the book they used Psychlo space ship and not Jets. Jets after 2000 years would be corroded beyond recognition and even if the the planes somehow miraclulously survived  intact Tthe electronics an  much of the wiring would dry corrode and crumble to dust.



I didn't get that far in the book but it was obvious that Hubbard had no idea of what a thousand years was like.   I gave up when they were finding 1000 year old Thompson Submachine guns with working ammo, and millennium-old telephone directories that had been left lying out in the open and had 'almost gone to pieces'.

(That's 1000 years not 2000 BTW.  The book is subtitled:_ Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000._)


----------



## Khuratokh

JunkMonkey said:


> I didn't get that far in the book but it was obvious that Hubbard had no idea of what a thousand years was like.   I gave up when they were finding 1000 year old Thompson Submachine guns with working ammo, and millennium-old telephone directories that had been left lying out in the open and had 'almost gone to pieces'.
> 
> (That's 1000 years not 2000 BTW.  The book is subtitled:_ Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000._)


Sorry for getting that wrong. I just filled in what I could remember of the top of my head. 
This is also one of those movies where aliens want gold for some reason. But never got round to raiding Fort Knox


----------



## J Riff

If all the germs n' microorganisms were turfed along with the humans etc. - maybe stuff would last longer. That's the scienterrific logicality as put forth by Watsisname.


----------



## JunkMonkey

> If all the germs n' microorganisms were turfed along with the humans etc. - maybe stuff would last longer. That's the scienterrific logicality as put forth by Watsisname.


 
Oh Yerrr.. makes sens. Im konvinssed.


----------



## Khuratokh

J Riff said:


> If all the germs n' microorganisms were turfed along with the humans etc. - maybe stuff would last longer. That's the scienterrific logicality as put forth by Watsisname.


He who should not be named? Feel a Voldermort vibe here.


----------



## J Riff

Never hearn of Voldy... oh.
It happened again last nite, in _SpaceTruckers._ Cabins are pressurized... but, if there's a window blown out, should all vents seal automatically? Wouldn't the air all leave the far corners and smash up to the window? What about the temperature change? I dunno, ask Spock and get back to us.


----------



## BAYLOR

Camiedee said:


> The Martian is a great movie, and as far as I saw, there was only one major scientific flaw, that being the Mars storm



Haven't they filmed dust storms on Mars from orbit?


----------



## Mirannan

BAYLOR said:


> Haven't they filmed dust storms on Mars from orbit?


Indeed they have. However, given the extremely thin air of Mars they would exert very little force.


----------



## psikeyhackr

I recently watched a number of episodes of the TV series *The 100.  *Two things kind of stick in my craw.  There is a scene where Thelonius has to cross a distance of space through vacuum from one part of the space station to another.  There is no way to really tell the distance but it looks ate least football field length, 500 yards (American football).  So he is in a space suit, with a cracked helmet of course, and opens the outer airlock door, and the air blasts him into space.  He then sails across the entire distance right into the other airlock without even hitting to edge of the door.  Nothing but net, as they say in basketball.  Of course we were not told why the other airlock was open unless I missed his remote activation.

Now what is the probability of such a perfect trajectory?  And with a station that should be spinning?  Why not have a jet pistol to correct?

Then he rides down to the surface in a compartment in a nuclear missile and gets out uninjured.  But in a previous episode a woman engineer went down in an escape pod designed for passengers that she had to fix up that incorporated a parachute, but she gets banged around and knocked unconscious and has blood in her helmet while Thelonious does not even have a crash couch.

Some stuff is just too obviously ridiculous.  This is why good SF is an art even when the writing isn't the best part of it.

And "metabolizing" radiation???  Is that like photosynthesis?  LOL

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr

BAYLOR said:


> Haven't they filmed dust storms on Mars from orbit?



Yes there are dust storms, but though they can pick up and move dust would they be strong enough to push a man over?  The Martian atmosphere has less than 1% of Earth's air pressure.  In the movie it could supposedly push the ship over that had to have 20+ tons of mass but the weight would be less on Mars.

psik


----------



## SilentRoamer

Hey psik that's correct.

Wind force is a combination of factors: Atmospheric density and wind speed. The low density on Mars means that even a storm would exert only enough pressure to feel like a breeze - there are a couple of online articles by NASA martian meteorologists.


----------



## Ray Pullar

psikeyhackr said:


> Then he rides down to the surface in a compartment in a nuclear missile and gets out uninjured.  But in a previous episode a woman engineer went down in an escape pod designed for passengers that she had to fix up that incorporated a parachute, but she gets banged around and knocked unconscious and has blood in her helmet while Thelonious does not even have a crash couch.
> psik



C'mon psik. Women are delicate creatures.

And Thelonius? Does he play piano?


----------



## Mirannan

Incidentally, the reverse applies in a thick atmosphere. Typical wind speeds at the surface of Venus are single digit kph, but given the fact that the atmosphere is something like 90 times as dense as Earth's even such feeble breezes would be powerful. However, I think that if you're on the surface of Venus then the fact that it's a bit windy is the least of your problems.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Mirannan said:


> Incidentally, the reverse applies in a thick atmosphere. Typical wind speeds at the surface of Venus are single digit kph, but given the fact that the atmosphere is something like 90 times as dense as Earth's even such feeble breezes would be powerful. However, I think that if you're on the surface of Venus then the fact that it's a bit windy is the least of your problems.



That's it!  We need to invent teleporters so we can teleport Venusian atmosphere to Mars.   Big stargates just sucking up atmosphere in one place and blowing it out in another.  LOL

psik


----------



## Khuratokh

Farscape has at least 5 instances where several of the main characters survive a stint in hard vacuum. Sometimes for several hours. Of course most of the cast have weird alien biology. 
But on one occasion the human lead John Chrichton jumps out of a transportpod without a suit and uses his pulse pistol as a directional thruster to reach another pod. It takes about 30 seconds and his bloodvessels under the skin burst. He survives, but only barely.
Of course Farscape prides itself on not having accurate science.
John mentions at one point. "We break the laws of physics every time we go out for groceries".


----------



## J Riff

I don't buy it for a second. It's a movie ploy, nothing more. Hard vacuum equals instant death. There's probably some books that have it right, but people only notice when the science is wrong, not right.


----------



## galanx

J Riff said:


> I don't buy it for a second. It's a movie ploy, nothing more. Hard vacuum equals instant death.



You keep saying this despite numerous examples to the contrary. Can you bring something more than your opinion?


----------



## SilentRoamer

J Riff said:


> I don't buy it for a second. It's a movie ploy, nothing more. Hard vacuum equals instant death. There's probably some books that have it right, but people only notice when the science is wrong, not right.



I stated up thread why this is a fallacy. There have been numerous tests on animals with not dissimilar biology to our own along with humans who have survived vacuum.

Survival in Space Unprotected Is Possible--Briefly


----------



## Khuratokh

J Riff said:


> I don't buy it for a second. It's a movie ploy, nothing more. Hard vacuum equals instant death. There's probably some books that have it right, but people only notice when the science is wrong, not right.


It sseems to me to be a movie ploy that people die instantly when exposed to vacuum. It's so pervasive people assume it to be the truth.


----------



## J Riff

?? They would die.. but movies constantly show them swimming around in space, eyes bugging, the door shuts, they are fine. Never seen a believable one where they just explode like a party cracker.


----------



## Khuratokh

J Riff said:


> ?? They would die.. but movies constantly show them swimming around in space, eyes bugging, the door shuts, they are fine. Never seen a believable one where they just explode like a party cracker.


Yeah the exploding thing is not exactly scientific either.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

They explode in that episode of the Simpson where they explode, so it's got to be that.


----------



## SilentRoamer

Armstrong limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia plays a key role. Essentially all you have to add is a lower temperature and you are essentially at vacuum.

I must admit the Total Recall reaction is fare more interesting to watch - albeit completely unrealistic. I think 60-90 seconds seems to be the limit for survival for most complex organisms with our sort of tolerances. As I have said earlier in the thread if you hold a deep breath you are screwed! The best way to survive is to completely exhale everything, close your eyes and mouth tight and launch into the void.

Tardigrades (water bears) however have survived exposure to vacuum for long periods of time and I have read some studies regarding cross contamination issues for spacecraft.


----------



## Starbeast

*Lack Thereof* - I still enjoy hearing made up science in old movies and early television shows.







*Bad Science* - People experimenting on themselves, or see someone do something stupid on Youtube, because they don't use common sense.







*Hand of Death *(1962)​
*Good Science* - Anything that can benefit humans on Earth and/or improve our world.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Khuratokh said:


> Yeah the exploding thing is not exactly scientific either.



What is curious is that Arthur C. Clarke had a large number of men transfer from one space ship to another through vacuum in  his story Earthlight(1955).  This was before Sputnik and animal experiments in vacuum.  The men hyperventilated in preparation and were moved by other men in suits and most of them only had to hold onto a rope.

Some so called SF movies only care about cinematic effects.

psik


----------



## BAYLOR

psikeyhackr said:


> What is curious is that Arthur C. Clarke had a large number of men transfer from one space ship to another through vacuum in  his story Earthlight(1955).  This was before Sputnik and animal experiments in vacuum.  The men hyperventilated in preparation and were moved by other men in suits and most of them only had to hold onto a rope.
> 
> Some so called SF movies only care about cinematic effects.
> 
> psik




Very true.


----------



## BAYLOR

SilentRoamer said:


> Armstrong limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia plays a key role. Essentially all you have to add is a lower temperature and you are essentially at vacuum.
> 
> I must admit the Total Recall reaction is fare more interesting to watch - albeit completely unrealistic. I think 60-90 seconds seems to be the limit for survival for most complex organisms with our sort of tolerances. As I have said earlier in the thread if you hold a deep breath you are screwed! The best way to survive is to completely exhale everything, close your eyes and mouth tight and launch into the void.
> 
> Tardigrades (water bears) however have survived exposure to vacuum for long periods of time and I have read some studies regarding cross contamination issues for spacecraft.



But if you exhale everything , you would black and wouldn't wake up.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Starbeast said:


> *Good Science* - Anything that can benefit humans on Earth and/or improve our world.



I bought this wonderful film last week, not knowing it was available on DVD, having loved it when young, and not having seen it for 40-odd years. Though it shows its age, I do still think it's a fantastically evocative film.


----------



## BAYLOR

How would the transporter on Star Trek be able to put the atoms of the person or object back in to their exact configuration.?


----------



## Ray McCarthy

BAYLOR said:


> How would the transporter on Star Trek


As Murray Leinster said in 1940s, a "Transporter" doesn't and can't work. You need a matter TRANSPOSER.
See www.gutenberg.org for his great stories.


The amount of data needed to encode a person exactly is impossibly large.
The Energy required is horrific E = mc Squared
It kills people and creates a copy
How can it work without a receiving device?
In comparison, the issue of putting the bits in the right place is minor!
It existed at all because they didn't want to have shuttle craft  use without a mockup, and they couldn't afford a mock up. The later explanation of it was very very stupid, instead of the Niven / Leinster (and others) approach of:

Don't try and explain the inexplicable
A "transposer", i.e. a portal machine that moves the ACTUAL object, while also probably impossible, it's not obviously completely stupid.


----------



## Mirannan

Ray - Completely agree about the transporter. As explained in the programmes themselves, that is. A warp door, although equally impossible by current theory, is at least conceivable.


----------



## SilentRoamer

Mirannan said:


> A warp door, although equally impossible by current theory, is at least conceivable.



Not sure what you are referring to in current theory but CTC's (Closed Timelike Curves) are perfectly conceivable in advanced physics. Einstein-Rosen bridges also have legitimate physics. Although most likely they are just mathematical artefacts.

What annoys me more about Warp Drive (I have had this discussion on another thread) is that they completely ignore relativity (essentially warp drive is just FTL with a person instead of a ship). Any sort of FTL transport violates causality because anything that moves FTL actually moves backwards in time, C in physics is more than an arbitrary speed limit - it is the highest speed for informational transfer of any kind under normal conditions. Anything moving faster than C violates this. (Exceptions do not need to be made for the faster than C scale expansion of the universe because there is no violation of C for any observer.)

/End rant


----------



## Khuratokh

Ray McCarthy said:


> As Murray Leinster said in 1940s, a "Transporter" doesn't and can't work. You need a matter TRANSPOSER.
> See www.gutenberg.org for his great stories.
> 
> 
> The amount of data needed to encode a person exactly is impossibly large.
> The Energy required is horrific E = mc Squared
> It kills people and creates a copy
> How can it work without a receiving device?
> In comparison, the issue of putting the bits in the right place is minor!
> It existed at all because they didn't want to have shuttle craft  use without a mockup, and they couldn't afford a mock up. The later explanation of it was very very stupid, instead of the Niven / Leinster (and others) approach of:
> 
> Don't try and explain the inexplicable
> A "transposer", i.e. a portal machine that moves the ACTUAL object, while also probably impossible, it's not obviously completely stupid.



CGP Grey has recently done a mini esaay on this.

Niven's stepping discs have the added benefit of reputation. If it wasn't 100% safe, the Puppeteers wouldn't use them


----------



## BAYLOR

Jurassic park III   T Rex vs Spinosaurus .   Neither existed on earth at the same time and I find hard to believe that T Rex would have lost that fight.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ant Man. lot of issues with this one . His suite can cause not only himself but objects to change size. Theres a few issues with this film  There is a scene  in which he causes and ant to grow to the size of a large dog it escapes. Why is that one so implausible ? If the ant were made that large , it would die of suffocation, ants great through their skin they have no lungs, and as giants they would not be able to get enough air to live . It's the same problem as the 1954 film *Them* in which radiation causes Ants to become giant sized.


----------



## Khuratokh

BAYLOR said:


> Jurassic park III   T Rex vs Spinosaurus .   Neither existed on earth at the same time and I find hard to believe that T Rex would have lost that fight.


While the skull of Spinosaur suggests it was probably was more interested in fish. Them not existing at the same time is a moot point since it is set in the here and now and it was up to Hammond which dinosaurs they brought back. Hell, they brought back stegosaurus, which in time is farther removed from the T-rex than we are.


----------



## Khuratokh

BAYLOR said:


> Ant Man. lot of issues with this one . His suite can cause not only himself but objects to change size. Theres a few issues with this film  There is a scene  in which he causes and ant to grow to the size of a large dog it escapes. Why is that one so implausible ? If the ant were made that large , it would die of suffocation, ants great through their skin they have no lungs, and as giants they would not be able to get enough air to live . It's the same problem as the 1954 film *Them* in which radiation causes Ants to become giant sized.


Also it's legs would collapse under it's own weight.


----------



## BAYLOR

Khuratokh said:


> Also it's legs would collapse under it's own weight.



Indeed.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Actually some of the stuff in this thread looks downright sensible when you look at real people's scientific knowledge:
A US town rejected solar panels amid fears 'they'd suck up all the energy from the sun'


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> Actually some of the stuff in this thread looks downright sensible when you look at real people's scientific knowledge:
> A US town rejected solar panels amid fears 'they'd suck up all the energy from the sun'



That is scary downright .


----------



## J Riff

Like the people who would spray disinfectant into a computer if they heard it had a virus.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

JunkMonkey said:


> fears 'they'd suck up all the energy from the sun'


Don't they know that the sun works by sucking away dark?


----------



## J Riff

Light humour... *


----------



## BAYLOR

*The Lights of Zetar * The aliens who were disembodied life-force energy  , that survived the destruction of their home world and the vacuum of space and yet they were all killed by being put into a pressure chamber? How can pressure kill energy ?


----------



## JunkMonkey

Because it's an episode of _Star Trek._  Anything can be killed in the Trekkiverse by inversive polarity tachnobabblised renforcementification.    The


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> Because it's an episode of _Star Trek._  Anything can be killed in the Trekkiverse by inversive polarity tachnobabblised renforcementification.    The



Your right everything can be killed in the Trekverse , even plausibility .


----------



## psikeyhackr

BAYLOR said:


> Your right everything can be killed in the Trekverse , even plausibility .



The strength of Star Trek is also the weakness of Star Trek.  Lots of different writers, but with widely varying degrees of scientific literacy.

psik


----------



## BAYLOR

psikeyhackr said:


> The strength of Star Trek is also the weakness of Star Trek.  Lots of different writers, but with widely varying degrees of scientific literacy.
> 
> psik



And their mantra  to the scientific plausibility issue.  The audience will never know the difference . And in that era of time they were correct.


----------



## JunkMonkey

BAYLOR said:


> And their mantra  to the scientific plausibility issue.  The audience will never know the difference . And in that era of time they were correct.



'That era of time'? Given the incredible, and often wilfully deliberate, ignorance of great chunks the current American population - they still are.


----------



## BAYLOR

KIng Kong , in this case the concept of Giant Monsters  being able to survive  on on Skull Island which is nat all that big a place.   How could they find enough to eat ?

Frost Giant brought  this point up in The Skull Island Movie thread. It's a very good point .


----------



## Vertigo

Never mind enough to eat what about enough to breed successfully without inbreeding?

Incidentally that has always been one of the main arguments against Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster); Lock Ness is very deep with very steep sides and is very acidic (due to the water flowing into it from peak bogs in the surrounding hills) which means it doesn't have a great deal of water vegetation which, in turn, means it has very little animal life. Certainly not enough to support one really large creature never mind a breeding population.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> Never mind enough to eat what about enough to breed successfully without inbreeding?
> 
> Incidentally that has always been one of the main arguments against Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster); Lock Ness is very deep with very steep sides and is very acidic (due to the water flowing into it from peak bogs in the surrounding hills) which means it doesn't have a great deal of water vegetation which, in turn, means it has very little animal life. Certainly not enough to support one really large creature never mind a breeding population.



Nessie doesn't exist and never did, except in peoples  imagination.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Maybe they just lived a very very long time and are the last of a much wider spread community?

_if sharks can live up to 400 years:
400-year-old Greenland shark ‘longest-living vertebrate’ - BBC News_


----------



## Vertigo

No Baylor's right. It is noticeable that there are similar myths around many other large lakes that have very steep sided tree covered shores. Branches break off and are seen floating in murky misty conditions and hey presto you have a monster. It's not just about needing a breeding community it's also about very little to eat in Loch Ness.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Vertigo said:


> No Baylor's right. It is noticeable that there are similar myths around many other large lakes that have very steep sided tree covered shores. Branches break off and are seen floating in murky misty conditions and hey presto you have a monster. It's not just about needing a breeding community it's also about very little to eat in Loch Ness.



And the need for something to sell the tourists.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> No Baylor's right. It is noticeable that there are similar myths around many other large lakes that have very steep sided tree covered shores. Branches break off and are seen floating in murky misty conditions and hey presto you have a monster. It's not just about needing a breeding community it's also about very little to eat in Loch Ness.



Lochness dates from the previous Ice age?


----------



## Vertigo

JunkMonkey said:


> And the need for something to sell the tourists.


That is most certainly it's primary modern role and why not? 


BAYLOR said:


> Lochness dates from the previous Ice age?


Loch Ness was, apparently, formed during the Quaternary Galciation (2.5 million years ago to the present). So relatively recent and long after the end of the dinosaur's era of dominance (most went extinct 66 million years ago).


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> That is most certainly it's primary modern role and why not?
> 
> Loch Ness was, apparently, formed during the Quaternary Galciation (2.5 million years ago to the present). So relatively recent and long after the end of the dinosaur's era of dominance (most went extinct 66 million years ago).



That time period also rules out Basilosaurus a  prehistoric predatory whale which died out 34 million years ago. In any event there would not be enough food to sustain even a single specimen .


----------



## Vertigo

BAYLOR said:


> That time period also rules out Basilosaurus a prehistoric predatory whale  which died out 34 million years ago. In any event there would not be enough food to sustain even a single specimen .


Yeah it's sad really; I'd love to believe... But then I'd also love to believe in Santa Claus. What he *is* real you say? Wuhoo!!!!


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> Yeah it's sad really; I'd love to believe... But then I'd also love to believe in Santa Claus. What he *is* real you say? Wuhoo!!!!



You would not want to be in the water with a Basilosaurus. They would likely regard us as snack food. 

They are very scary looking . If your curious as what they looks like Google images.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> Yeah it's sad really; I'd love to believe... But then I'd also love to believe in Santa Claus. What he *is* real you say? Wuhoo!!!!



So far science has proven conclusively that the North Pole is currently unoccupied by Santa.  Of course no one is ruling out the possibility that he might have a townhouse somewhere in New York .


----------



## BigBadBob141

What with various military sites around the world, defended by anti-aircraft missiles.
I wonder if Santa's sleigh comes fitted anti-radar chaff and heat flares?


----------



## Mirannan

BigBadBob141 said:


> What with various military sites around the world, defended by anti-aircraft missiles.
> I wonder if Santa's sleigh comes fitted anti-radar chaff and heat flares?



Well, considering that to do all the deliveries he has to do, Santa's sleigh has to travel at 650 miles per second and his sleigh (with cargo) has a mass of approximately 350,000 tons. I suggest that any SAM currently in deployment can't hit it, and if it does the sleigh (over 3 times as massive as USS Nimitz) is unlikely to be affected much.


----------



## BAYLOR

Then theres theToy delivery issue.


----------



## Vladd67

Everyone knows Santa lives in South America now, all gifts come from the Amazon these days.


----------



## BigBadBob141

REF: Vladd67.
Groan, groan, groan!!!!!!!


----------



## BAYLOR

*Missile to the Moon* 1958 . The implausibilities in this one are the stuff of legend . Astronauts from earth  land on the moon and find a civilization of women living in aired Caverns below the ground,  giant spiders, and Rock creatures.


----------



## JunkMonkey

BAYLOR said:


> *Missile to the Moon* 1958 . The implausibilities in this one are the stuff of legend . Astronauts from earth  land on the moon and find a civilization of women living in aired Caverns below the ground,  giant spiders, and Rock creatures.



I was particularly struck, while watching that one, by the number of flaming torches in sconces around the place.  For a society running out of breathable air it seemed a bit of interior decoration that was short-sighted to say the least.


----------



## BAYLOR

JunkMonkey said:


> I was particularly struck, while watching that one, by the number of flaming torches in sconces around the place.  For a society running out of breathable air it seemed a bit of interior decoration that was short-sighted to say the least.



I forgot about that.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

BAYLOR said:


> *Missile to the Moon* 1958 . The implausibilities in this one are the stuff of legend . Astronauts from earth  land on the moon and find a civilization of women living in aired Caverns below the ground,  giant spiders, and Rock creatures.



On the other hand, there is a certain charm in some of these old, completely ridiculous scenarios. I've long toyed with the idea of doing a steampunk novel where the characters travel to the moon on a steam train. Part of the joy of such works is the humour of old notions versus reality. Exaggerating the madness of the old is a great source of humour.


----------



## BAYLOR

Stephen Palmer said:


> On the other hand, there is a certain charm in some of these old, completely ridiculous scenarios. I've long toyed with the idea of doing a steampunk novel where the characters travel to the moon on a steam train. Part of the joy of such works is the humour of old notions versus reality. Exaggerating the madness of the old is a great source of humour.



Please, write that story.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

BAYLOR said:


> Please, write that story.



It's very tempting! A few of my fans have asked about more _Hairy London_ novels, but I'm not sure I could do that again - it was a bit of a one-off. But, who knows...


----------



## BAYLOR

Star Wars uses the term light speed  to designate Hyperspace.


----------



## BAYLOR

As much as I like *Robinson Crusoe  on Mars , * even in 1964 when the tim was made , Science already knew the air was too thin for life and protection from ultraviolet radiation.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor

BAYLOR said:


> Star Wars uses the term light speed  to designate Hyperspace.



And uses parsecs as a unit of time.


----------



## BigBadBob141

Yes It's the same with the term light year.
People hear the year part and think it's a unit of time not distance.


----------



## JunkMonkey

Hours and minutes are a unit of time but I regularly hear people talk about such and such a place being X hours or Y minutes away.  The need to go on to then tell the listener that the speaker assumes the distance will be travelled in a vehicle being driven safely and in accordance with the roads' speed limits isn't needed in most conversation.  It is assumed from context.  We all speak in a vernacular and idiomatically.  We're not walking text books written by grammarians.

It's not too difficult to assume that people in SF don't spend time burdening each other with pettifogging details that would be, in context, bloody obvious to each other.  (Well they do, often, but it really stands out when characters infodump at each other.) 

In everyday life I wouldn't say to someone on foot asking me how far it is to the nearest post office - "It is 1.25 Km in a north easterly direction and, assuming you are travelling by foot, are reasonably fit, and don't suffer from any kind of mobility impairment not obvious to the naked eye, it should take you (at an average walking speed of 5 Km P H)  a quarter of an hour to reach it if you don't stop to talk to anyone on the way."

No. I just say, "It's about 15 minutes down the road. Opposite the pub."

Similarly if they were in a car I would say ""It's a couple of minutes that way. Opposite the pub."  

I wouldn't go on to give the driver detailed instructions about which side of the road to drive on and how to negotiate the pedestrian crossing he will encounter on the way.

Maybe, given the hand waviness of so much of the science in Star Wars (the variable speed of light in _The Farce Awakens_ being one such example), ships have to get to light speed before they can enter hyperspace and, while in hyperspace, the measurement of time is best expressed in units of distance.   Luke and Obi Wan would have known this without having it explained to them.


----------



## BAYLOR

Bizmuth said:


> And uses parsecs as a unit of time.



I missed that one.


----------



## Mirannan

BAYLOR said:


> I missed that one.



I've seen a justification of that particular line, and it amkes some kind of sense. Simply that hyperspace is distinctly different from realspace, and one of the differences is that there are many routes between two points; one can assume that the shorter ones are more difficult and dangerous, needing a good pilot and really good navigational equipment. Han Solo took a shorter route than just about anyone else.


----------



## BigBadBob141

What annoys me is when people use misuse the word "Galaxy", as in "He comes from another galaxy" when star would be more accurate.
As if our own weren't  big enough, as if it's just a stroll around the corner.
Most people have no idea just how mind bogglelingly  vast our universe is.
It's about 2.5 million light years to the nearest galaxy, the light that we see it by started on it's journey well before the first humans looked up at the night sky, and wondered what all the points of light were!
The nearest star is a mere 4.2 light years away.
But even this is roughly something like 25,000,000,000,000 miles away!
Even I have a job getting my head around that!


----------



## psikeyhackr

BAYLOR said:


> I missed that one.



Shame on you!

psik


----------



## JunkMonkey

BigBadBob141 said:


> What annoys me is when people use misuse the word "Galaxy", as in "He comes from another galaxy" when star would be more accurate.



'Planet' would be more more accurate  I'm pretty sure any sentient life out there isn't living on the surface of stars.


----------



## psikeyhackr

JunkMonkey said:


> 'Planet' would be more more accurate  I'm pretty sure any sentient life out there isn't living on the surface of stars.



If we can ever travel between stars who is going to care about which planet unless there are multiple habitable planets around one star?  People will probably still tend to speak colloquially.  What's an AU when stars with habitable planets probably average 100 light-years apart?

psik


----------



## Ladymage

Lucy. That 2014 movie killed my brain with its' stupidity and scientific myths about the brain. Morgan Freeman was that movie's only saving grace!


----------



## JunkMonkey

psikeyhackr said:


> If we can ever travel between stars who is going to care about which planet unless there are multiple habitable planets around one star?  People will probably still tend to speak colloquially.  What's an AU when stars with habitable planets probably average 100 light-years apart?
> 
> psik




Agreed - see my wafflings about parsecs in _Star Wars_ earlier in the thread but I bet, just as today when many emigree people talk about themselves as being from, or belonging to, a country their forebears left generations ago, humans will talk about coming from 'Earth' (or 'Mars') rather than 'Sol' when we get out there.


----------



## Mirannan

JunkMonkey said:


> 'Planet' would be more more accurate  I'm pretty sure any sentient life out there isn't living on the surface of stars.



I'm not. Life, sentient or sapient or otherwise, requires a source of low-entropy energy, a place to get rid of waste products and low-temperature heat, and some way of keeping itself separate from the medium it's in. Some sort of self-sustaining plasma vortex, holding itself together with magnetic fields, might manage that.

Failing that, and stretching the definition of "star" quite a lot, life on the surface of a neutron star has also been described. In fiction, admittedly.


----------



## BigBadBob141

The point I am trying woefully to make is that galaxy's are very, very big and very, very far away!!!
Any aliens we encounter would be from somewhere in our own galaxy AKA the Milky Way.
I am well aware that life is very unlikely to exist on the surface or depths of a star, but you never know.
However when referring to an aliens home you are as likely to name it from which stellar system it comes from, then as from the name of it's home world!
This at least would give you some idea of how far it has come.


----------



## BAYLOR

BigBadBob141 said:


> The point I am trying woefully to make is that galaxy's are very, very big and very, very far away!!!
> Any aliens we encounter would be from somewhere in our own galaxy AKA the Milky Way.
> I am well aware that life is very unlikely to exist on the surface or depths of a star, but you never know.
> However when referring to an aliens home you are as likely to name it from which stellar system it comes from, then as from the name of it's home world!
> This at least would give you some idea of how far it has come.




We might find life that can exit in the vacuum of space.


----------



## J Riff

Most life would probably exit, in a vacuum, looking for some air or other breathable stuff.


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> Most life would probably exit, in a vacuum, looking for some air or other breathable stuff.



Typo, I meant exist.


----------



## J Riff

It was disconsciously correct though, life would exit through the wormhole in the space-dirt, looking to boldly grow where no worms hath crawled before.


----------



## RX-79G

JunkMonkey said:


> 'Planet' would be more more accurate  I'm pretty sure any sentient life out there isn't living on the surface of stars.


Except that phrase does not mean from the star itself, but from that star system. I think it pretty unlikely that we will be traveling between stars without first settling in more than one part of the Sol system.

But anyway, the fact that something "comes from France" doesn't mean _all _of France. It is normal to use a less specific, but better known name to identify your home.



J Riff said:


> Most life would probably exit, in a vacuum, looking for some air or other breathable stuff.


We have no idea where "most life" would do anything. We only know of one kind of life so far. Comets and nebula might make great environments for life to arise.


----------



## BAYLOR

There could be life out there that can subsisted on radiation.


----------



## RX-79G

BAYLOR said:


> There could be life out there that can subsisted on radiation.


It works for plants.


----------



## RX-79G

Bizmuth said:


> And uses parsecs as a unit of time.


That's only if you believe that he was bragging about time. Hyperspace travel might vary in how direct different systems allow you to travel, and Solo's ship may allow travel closer to stars or other obstacles than less powerful or less sophisticated hyperdrives.

It is a presumption that it is a mistake.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ladymage said:


> Lucy. That 2014 movie killed my brain with its' stupidity and scientific myths about the brain. Morgan Freeman was that movie's only saving grace!



Much of that film made no sense whatsoever.


----------



## J Riff

In the Demon Princes series, Jack Vance has a badguy who lives on a dead star. He goes into fair detail expousing how this might be possible. A brown dwarf I think.


----------



## SilentRoamer

I can think of a few series that has aliens which live on stars.


----------



## Lumens

There are so many scifi movies which bother me with their lazy science, but some of them get away with it, like Star Trek or Star Wars because they have a good narrative (for the most part).

*Sunshine *has a plot which is completely unrealistic, but the issue that bothers me is how humankind's last hope, the best team they could muster up, is a bunch of dunces who do not seem to handle pressure very well. I would expect them to be a team which could play chess without using a chess board.

*Gravity* has been mentioned already. I actually stopped watching it midway, and it reeks from the very start - Clooney aimlessly farting around in a rocket pack playing music during a spacewalk was almost a bit hard to watch. Too many issues to go into for a film that tries to look scientific.

*Lucy* was an enjoyable film but was diminished because of all the pseudo-babble about our brain. It does not stand up to rewatching.

*The Core* has so much false science that it almost gets funny. If only I could finish it but life is too short.

*The Day After Tomorrow* crashes and burns with its overdramatic climatology. It was a good film anyway though if you disregard the dodgy science.

I don't mind movies that break the laws of physics. Its more a problem with building a world that does not fall apart, and if you choose the real world it would be nice if that world holds water. Some films become a bit preachy, but if they are based on a false notion which pulls the rug under the message it can get cringeworthy fast.


----------



## Lumens

Another thing I take issue with is the lights inside the helmet of a space suit. Almost all scifi space suits do this. It reduces visibility in a dark environment. I understand why film makers do this, to make sure we can see the faces of the actors, but it still takes me out of the illusion.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Lumens said:


> Another thing I take issue with is the lights inside the helmet of a space suit. Almost all scifi space suits do this. It reduces visibility in a dark environment. I understand why film makers do this, to make sure we can see the faces of the actors, but it still takes me out of the illusion.



A very good point - and welcome to the chrons forums.


----------



## Lumens

Brian G Turner said:


> A very good point - and welcome to the chrons forums.



Thank you Brian. I have a feeling I will like it very much here.


----------



## BAYLOR

Lumens said:


> Thank you Brian. I have a feeling I will like it very much here.



Welcome to Chrons Lumens


----------



## BAYLOR

Ladymage said:


> Lucy. That 2014 movie killed my brain with its' stupidity and scientific myths about the brain. Morgan Freeman was that movie's only saving grace!



The film made no sense whatsoever .


----------



## Lumens

Totally agree @BAYLOR - The myth about us only using a small part of our brain is slow to die. 

SPOILER: ...and using 100% makes us into gods, but also kills us at the same time - is that not a bit of a contradiction...? Oh well.


----------



## Danny McG

J Riff said:


> Like the people who would spray disinfectant into a computer if they heard it had a virus.



What? Are you saying that doesn't work or something?
Confused now


----------



## BAYLOR

I think we can safely say that many of the ship designs  we see in science fiction movies and tv are more fanciful then practical.


----------



## BAYLOR

Khuratokh said:


> While the skull of Spinosaur suggests it was probably was more interested in fish. Them not existing at the same time is a moot point since it is set in the here and now and it was up to Hammond which dinosaurs they brought back. Hell, they brought back stegosaurus, which in time is farther removed from the T-rex than we are.



About 80 million years separates both Dinosaurs . Stegosaurs was gone long before Rex arrived on the scene.


----------



## psikeyhackr

BAYLOR said:


> Stegosaurs was gone long before Rex arrived on the scene.



What!  You mean all of those movie fights between Rex and Steggy were fantasy?  

psik


----------



## Venusian Broon

psikeyhackr said:


> What!  You mean all of those movie fights between Rex and Steggy were fantasy?
> 
> psik



I believe you would have got duels between Rex and Triceps though, I'm sure that would make up for it.


----------



## Mirannan

psikeyhackr said:


> What!  You mean all of those movie fights between Rex and Steggy were fantasy?
> 
> psik



I think it's worth mentioning that allosaurs (which look quite a lot like tyrannosaurs, except smaller and longer arms) lived at the same time as Stegosaurus.


----------



## hej

Dennis E. Taylor said:


> I don't think there's one single thing about Space 1999 that didn't make me cringe.



I tried to watch it an episode, oh, about a year or two ago. Boy was it bad!


----------



## hej

Dennis E. Taylor said:


> NASA actually did studies of how long people could survive vacuum. It's not instant death, but then it's not minutes either. I'm pretty sure he'd have survived for the 15 seconds or so he was in vacuum.



Good to know.

That scene always hung in my mind. I could never decide whether it was possible -- or merely poetic license.

Thank you for giving creedence to it being plausible.


----------



## hej

BAYLOR said:


> What does a 400 foot monster like Godzilla eat to sustain himself? Plankton maybe?



The idea never crossed my mind. I must say that I only watch movies with Godzilla when I was a kid. Even then I was underwhelmed. Before your comment, I considered Godzilla silly. Now, I think of it as preposterous.


----------



## hej

Lumens said:


> Another thing I take issue with is the lights inside the helmet of a space suit. Almost all scifi space suits do this. It reduces visibility in a dark environment. I understand why film makers do this, to make sure we can see the faces of the actors, but it still takes me out of the illusion.



I never quite had that problem with the lights. I was mostly able to suspend my disbelief -- though I did sense something not quite right.

You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for clarifying (to me) why I felt a bit uneasy with those helms.


----------



## hej

Khuratokh said:


> Pointing out flaws in The Star Wars universe always seemed to be a pointless exercise. It's more a fantasy setting and has no claims to be accurate in the first place
> 
> As I studied Archaeology, mistakes or lies in movies really sting. Aliens v predator had the Aztecs build a temple 4000 years ago. Before 1100ad the aztecs didn't exist.



I agree with you on Star Wars. I see the series as more space fantasy than space scifi.

Cool that you studied archeology. Perhaps, you would be kind enough to post constructive criticism of my description of the Neolithic -- when I have my story ready.

I am eager to be sure of what did not exist -- and what did.


----------



## Khuratokh

Mirannan said:


> I think it's worth mentioning that allosaurs (which look quite a lot like tyrannosaurs, except smaller and longer arms) lived at the same time as Stegosaurus.


Yes, it's fascinating to note how often in Earths natural history that "T-rex theropod" configuration pops up. Often with considerable gaps in between.


----------



## Vertigo

Both books and films are guilty of this one. Magnetic boots for walking about on the outside of spaceships. It's been discussed elsewhere on Chrons before but worth a mention here. Why would anyone build a spaceship using a ferromagnetic material like iron, nickel, cobalt etc? They are all way too heavy for spaceship construction.


----------



## hej

Vertigo said:


> Both books and films are guilty of this one. Magnetic boots for walking about on the outside of spaceships. It's been discussed elsewhere on Chrons before but worth a mention here. Why would anyone build a spaceship using a ferromagnetic material like iron, nickel, cobalt etc? They are all way too heavy for spaceship construction.


At first I thought "preposterous." On second thought, I reckon a moving magnetic field could allow for something like magnetic boots. Does anyone else see it this way? Or is it just me?


----------



## Vertigo

hej said:


> At first I thought "preposterous." On second thought, I reckon a moving magnetic field could allow for something like magnetic boots. Does anyone else see it this way? Or is it just me?


Yes that idea was discussed previously but it seems like an horrendously overly complex and expensive solution just to allow for the occasional forays onto the outer hull. I think the gecko idea that also crops up so often in SF is much more likely and/or simple safety lines, which I think is what is used on the ISS.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Vertigo said:


> Both books and films are guilty of this one. Magnetic boots for walking about on the outside of spaceships. It's been discussed elsewhere on Chrons before but worth a mention here. Why would anyone build a spaceship using a ferromagnetic material like iron, nickel, cobalt etc? They are all way too heavy for spaceship construction.



Curious - I envisage use of powerful electromagnetic fields acting as a form of shield - not least to protect against radiation in space - so a significant part of the ship would need to be ferromagnetic. However, I would also imagine that would need a protective layer around it - perhaps a composite foam, which may or may not need to be conductive. I also wouldn't imagine us trying to lift materials directly from the planet's surface, but instead mining in space - hence any shipyards as more likely to be in safe proximity to the asteroid belt, rather than in Earth orbit.


----------



## Vertigo

Brian G Turner said:


> Curious - I envisage use of powerful electromagnetic fields acting as a form of shield - not least to protect against radiation in space - so a significant part of the ship would need to be ferromagnetic. However, I would also imagine that would need a protective layer around it - perhaps a composite foam, which may or may not need to be conductive. I also wouldn't imagine us trying to lift materials directly from the planet's surface, but instead mining in space - hence any shipyards as more likely to be in safe proximity to the asteroid belt, rather than in Earth orbit.


I'm not sure a generated electromagnetic field would be good for giving consistent grip all over the hull and as for generating the field, I don't think you would use an iron based hull to generate it but rather electrical coils or I seem to remember vaguely that in order to generate a sufficient strong field to act as a shield plasma maybe came into the equation somewhere. And whilst lifting a heavy aircraft out of a gravity well would be expensive so would accelerating a heavy craft. So, even if built in space, I still think ferrous materials would be avoided.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Vertigo said:


> I'm not sure a generated electromagnetic field would be good for giving consistent grip all over the hull and as for generating the field, I don't think you would use an iron based hull to generate it but rather electrical coils or I seem to remember vaguely that in order to generate a sufficient strong field to act as a shield plasma maybe came into the equation somewhere. And whilst lifting a heavy aircraft out of a gravity well would be expensive so would accelerating a heavy craft. So, even if built in space, I still think ferrous materials would be avoided.



Oops, I think I had a brain fart - I'm certainly not thinking of an iron-based hull or the ability to use magnetic boots on the exterior, so you can breathe a sigh of relief there. 

I would also imagine any EM field would be produced by a power core rather than locally. However, I would also imagine it could be helpful to be able to use some part of the ship's superstructure to conduct and shape the field so that it covers the ship (presuming it's not a sphere).

I think I may be tripping over my terminology, too - there would actually be no need to use anything ferromagnetic at all, simply materials that are good conductors. I've been watching developments with carbon allotropes and conductive plastics. Lightweight composite foams may could do what I need - and maybe provide mechanical support as well.

(This is one reason why I never normally mention details of the materials used.  )


----------



## Justin Swanton

Thinking about it, I can't remember _*any *_SF movie I watched that didn't seriously sin against science at some point or other. Even _The Martian_ failed badly with the Martian storm and the fact that regardless what he did, Mark Watney would have been dead from Cosmic radiation and/or solar flares long before he could return to Earth.

The problem with using space as a backdrop to a story is the fact that it's virtually impossible to have an adventure out there and still come out alive. Apollo 13 is the closest. Notice how narrow the margins of error are. The story is all about the maths and NASA's ingenuity in coming up with a way of scrubbing the accumulating CO2.


----------



## hej

Vertigo said:


> Yes that idea was discussed previously but it seems like an horrendously overly complex and expensive solution just to allow for the occasional forays onto the outer hull. I think the gecko idea that also crops up so often in SF is much more likely and/or simple safety lines, which I think is what is used on the ISS.



hunh. Not sure why I missed it.

The gecko-like approach seems much better.

Does anyone have information about its recent or present use (whether on the ISS or not)?


----------



## Justin Swanton

hej said:


> hunh. Not sure why I missed it.
> 
> The gecko-like approach seems much better.
> 
> Does anyone have information about its recent or present use (whether on the ISS or not)?



As far as I know astronauts on the ISS doing EVA's just use tethers. They tried a jet pack at one time and decided it was too dangerous.


----------



## Mirannan

One idea that might work to make the magnetic boots useful: It's not all that well known that iron and its alloys are far from the best at holding magnetic fields; various exotic alloys of several different rare earth metals are rather better. So it is at least possible that a solution to this problem might be to use rare earth magnets in the boots (to reduce the mass; a good point there) and a thin layer of rare earth alloy plated onto the hull (probably on the inside) for them to grab on to.


----------



## Vertigo

hej said:


> hunh. Not sure why I missed it.
> 
> The gecko-like approach seems much better.
> 
> Does anyone have information about its recent or present use (whether on the ISS or not)?


I don't think we're quite there yet with gecko like material but I think we are getting there. And I suspect such materials are likely to work better in space where things aren't going to be covered in dust and other muck.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> I don't think we're quite there yet with gecko like material but I think we are getting there. And I suspect such materials are likely to work better in space where things aren't going to be covered in dust and other muck.



What they could do is put magnetic small magnetic plates and could be walked upon  on the side of the capsule , not a lot of them but enough so that they co outside and explore and make repairs.


----------



## Vertigo

BAYLOR said:


> What they could do is put magnetic small magnetic plates and could be walked upon  on the side of the capsule , not a lot of them but enough so that they co outside and explore and make repairs.


That could provide a nice little plot point. If you misplace your foot it would be pretty obvious whether it had been grabbed by a magnetic plate but if, say, you were trying to escape a villain and a bit panicky then you might misplace a foot and... oh dear!


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> That could provide a nice little plot point. If you misplace your foot it would be pretty obvious whether it had been grabbed by a magnetic plate but if, say, you were trying to escape a villain and a bit panicky then you might misplace a foot and... oh dear!



I wish I could write fiction.


----------



## Justin Swanton

Personally I would think jet packs are more versatile - can't quite understand why NASA abandoned them.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Justin Swanton said:


> Personally I would think jet packs are more versatile - can't quite understand why NASA abandoned them.



There was more connection to the military than NASA usually admitted to and people though a soldier using a jet pack would be an easier target than a flying duck, it wasn't very fast.  Plus they never got much flying time.  

psik


----------



## BAYLOR

psikeyhackr said:


> There was more connection to the military than NASA usually admitted to and people though a soldier using a jet pack would be an easier target than a flying duck, it wasn't very fast.  Plus they never got much flying time.
> 
> psik



What happens if you run out propellant at height that a parachute won't remedy?


----------



## Lumens

In the latest *Cloverfiled Paradox*, the centrifugal force is offset by 90 degrees on the space ship. Terrible.

And a single Higgs boson causes world changing events to happen... And, and, ... oh never mind.


----------



## J Riff

Yes, is it SF or fantasy>?  same's time travel stories. but ..Once you have 2 dimensions crashing together, well a lot of fun movie stuff can happen so what the heck, run wit it. But.. I wonder, what dimension are the giant monsters from? They aren't in either of Cloverfield 2 or 3, until the last minute of this new one. So, is there a 3rd monster dimension? or are they hiding, yknow... between the dimensions... and are freed because, because.... And how to send them back? something clever, since nuking them seems to not be enough.


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> Yes, is it SF or fantasy>?  same's time travel stories. but ..Once you have 2 dimensions crashing together, well a lot of fun movie stuff can happen so what the heck, run wit it. But.. I wonder, what dimension are the giant monsters from? They aren't in either of Cloverfield 2 or 3, until the last minute of this new one. So, is there a 3rd monster dimension? or are they hiding, yknow... between the dimensions... and are freed because, because.... And how to send them back? something clever, since nuking them seems to not be enough.



I tired watching the first one and couldn't get into it.


----------



## psikeyhackr

BAYLOR said:


> What happens if you run out propellant at height that a parachute won't remedy?



The usual physics phenomenon.


----------



## BAYLOR

psikeyhackr said:


> The usual physics phenomenon.



A sudden jarring stop when you reach the ground.


----------



## Vertigo

Following on from that (falling and landing suddenly!) in a book rather than film, I recently read a real clanger:



> If you took a long fall _inside_ a ship — say, down the engine shaft on a big homesteader — you’d have enough time to shout the word “falling!” This would prompt the local AI to turn off the adjacent artigrav net. Your descent would abruptly end, and you’d be free to drift over to the nearest railing. You’d piss off anyone in the vicinity who’d been drinking mek or working with small tech parts, but it was a fair price to pay for staying alive.



You'd stop accelerating but you wouldn't stop moving and you'd almost certainly be moving fast enough by then for death or at least injury. Reversing the artificial gravity for exactly the right amount of time would work but would also have catastrophic rather than just inconvenient consequences for everyone else. 

Frankly if an author/scriptwriter/director can't wrap their mind around basic physics they should avoid Science Fiction.


----------



## psikeyhackr

> This would prompt the local AI to turn off the adjacent artigrav net



What kind of crappy AI isn't watching everyone on the ship?  LOL


----------



## Vertigo

psikeyhackr said:


> What kind of crappy AI isn't watching everyone on the ship?  LOL


Good point though I still suspect you'd get up a fair lick of speed before it was shut down.


----------



## Onyx

Vertigo said:


> Following on from that (falling and landing suddenly!) in a book rather than film, I recently read a real clanger:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd stop accelerating but you wouldn't stop moving and you'd almost certainly be moving fast enough by then for death or at least injury. Reversing the artificial gravity for exactly the right amount of time would work but would also have catastrophic rather than just inconvenient consequences for everyone else.
> 
> Frankly if an author/scriptwriter/director can't wrap their mind around basic physics they should avoid Science Fiction.


Aren't you assuming that "artigrav" works like gravity? Artigrav could be so different than gravity that when you remove it your body goes back to the momentum it would have had before entering artigrav.

Author's physics, author's rules.


----------



## Vertigo

Onyx said:


> Aren't you assuming that "artigrav" works like gravity? Artigrav could be so different than gravity that when you remove it your body goes back to the momentum it would have had before entering artigrav.
> 
> Author's physics, author's rules.


That wouldn't be consistent with how it behaves in the rest of the book. And you could say that about anything in this thread and indeed anything in science fiction, which is where the grey areas come between hard SF, SF and what I'd describe as Science Fantasy.


----------



## psikeyhackr

For me a curious thing about the movie, Gravity is the lack of discussion of when Sandra Bullock's character was supposed to release herself from the Canadarm.






It was broken loose from the shuttle and spinning and Cloony's character was yelling at her to release from the arm like it made no difference when she did it.  Since it was rotating and moving in a line away from the shuttle what direction she would be hurled in would depend on the timing.

But for all of the talk about how accurate or inaccurate the movie was Neil DeGrasse Tyson has not discussed that.  Yeah, just sling her faster away from the shuttle!


----------



## Onyx

psikeyhackr said:


> For me a curious thing about the movie, Gravity is the lack of discussion of when Sandra Bullock's character was supposed to release herself from the Canadarm.
> 
> 
> It was broken loose from the shuttle and spinning and Cloony's character was yelling at her to release from the arm like it made no difference when she did it.  Since it was rotating and moving in a line away from the shuttle what direction she would be hurled in would depend on the timing.
> 
> But for all of the talk about how accurate or inaccurate the movie was Neil DeGrasse Tyson has not discussed that.  Yeah, just sling her faster away from the shuttle!



If you're talking about this scene, I would note that Canadarm is rotating around Bullock, not the other way around, so it isn't going to throw her as much as she is going to throw the arm. And she is rotating too fast for an uncomfortable specialist on their first walk to time much of anything.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Onyx said:


> If you're talking about this scene, I would note that Canadarm is rotating around Bullock, not the other way around,



It has been a long time since I saw the movie but if they shot it that way then it is just another error.



> The Canadarm is 15.2 m (50 ft) long and 38 cm (15 in) diameter with six degrees of freedom. It weighs 410 kg (900 lb) by itself, and 450 kg (990 lb) as part of the total system.



Canadarm - Wikipedia



> The Apollo suit, including the life support backpack, weighed about 180 pounds. The Shuttle suit, including the life support system, weighs *about 310 pounds*. The suit itself weighs *about 110 pounds*. If an astronaut weighing *175 pounds* wears the complete suit, the total weight is then *about 485 pounds* (310 + 175 =495).



In reality they would have rotated around their mutual center of gravity which would have had to be a few feet away from her.


----------



## Onyx

psikeyhackr said:


> It has been a long time since I saw the movie but if they shot it that way then it is just another error.
> 
> 
> 
> Canadarm - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> In reality they would have rotated around their mutual center of gravity which would have had to be a few feet away from her.


You're assuming that the mass is evenly distributed across the length of the arm. More likely the two ends are the heaviest parts, and the shuttle end was broken off. So if the majority of the arm's mass is left at the claw end, it is going to keep the CG near the astronaut.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Onyx said:


> You're assuming that the mass is evenly distributed across the length of the arm. More likely the two ends are the heaviest parts, and the shuttle end was broken off. So if the majority of the arm's mass is left at the claw end, it is going to keep the CG near the astronaut.



There were 3 mass concentrations; the shoulder, the elbow and the wrist.  In the film the upper arm broke leaving the shoulder with the shuttle.  The elbow and wrist were rotating with Sandra.  Each arm section was about 60 pounds and 25 feet long so the elbow was probably about 1/3rd of 750 pounds.   That much weight at that distance would put the center of rotation some feet away from Bolluck.  So releasing would alter her trajectory.

The conversation during that scene implied that the arm was carrying her away but they had mutual complex movement.  When she released would matter and possibly make it worse at the wrong time.  Even if I was making the invalid assumption you accuse me of it would still be true.  The wrist was about 5 feet long by itself.  You can even see that in the film.


----------



## Onyx

psikeyhackr said:


> There were 3 mass concentrations; the shoulder, the elbow and the wrist.  In the film the upper arm broke leaving the shoulder with the shuttle.  The elbow and wrist were rotating with Sandra.  Each arm section was about 60 pounds and 25 feet long so the elbow was probably about 1/3rd of 750 pounds.   That much weight at that distance would put the center of rotation some feet away from Bolluck.  So releasing would alter her trajectory.
> 
> The conversation during that scene implied that the arm was carrying her away but they had mutual complex movement.  When she released would matter and possibly make it worse at the wrong time.  Even if I was making the invalid assumption you accuse me of it would still be true.  The wrist was about 5 feet long by itself.  You can even see that in the film.


None of which changes the fact that the character had little chance of properly gauging and executing a useful release point. Have you ever been in an aircraft in a spin?


----------



## Onyx

psikeyhackr said:


> Each arm section was about 60 pounds and 25 feet long so the elbow was probably about 1/3rd of 750 pounds.


BTW, Where can I read about these engineering numbers you've supplied?


----------



## psikeyhackr

Onyx said:


> BTW, Where can I read about these engineering numbers you've supplied?



Canadarm - Wikipedia

Canadarm -- The SRMS Technical Details

How the Canadarm changed spaceflight


----------



## Onyx

psikeyhackr said:


> Canadarm - Wikipedia
> 
> Canadarm -- The SRMS Technical Details
> 
> How the Canadarm changed spaceflight


Thank you.

And I agree, the center of rotation, depending on how straight the arm is, will be several feet from Sandra. And in the film it looks like it is indeed at least 3-8 feet from her as the arm has lost about 1/3 of its original length. (Though we never see a static full screen shot of the spinning arm.) So she and the arm will move apart when released, which is also depicted in the film. Also depicted is Clooney saying "I can't see you. Release, release!".

What is it you think is wrong with this scene? If Clooney can't see her and she is spinning in two axes, what should he be telling her to do?


----------



## psikeyhackr

Onyx said:


> What is it you think is wrong with this scene? If Clooney can't see her and she is spinning in two axes, what should he be telling her to do?



What I said was:


> For me a curious thing about the movie, Gravity is the lack of discussion of when Sandra Bullock's character was supposed to release herself from the Canadarm.



They could have had her in sight of Clooney telling her to calm down and tell her when to release.  Releasing at random could make matters worse  But it is the lack of discussion of the rotation that I have found peculiar about this "accurate" movie.


----------



## Onyx

psikeyhackr said:


> What I said was:
> 
> 
> They could have had her in sight of Clooney telling her to calm down and tell her when to release.  Releasing at random could make matters worse  But it is the lack of discussion of the rotation that I have found peculiar about this "accurate" movie.


I'm sure there would be some discussion if all the astronauts, engineers or physicists that saw it noticed something wrong with that scene. Given what is shown to be happening, I think the characters reacted realistically.


----------



## BAYLOR

Starbeast said:


> *Lack Thereof* - I still enjoy hearing made up science in old movies and early television shows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bad Science* - People experimenting on themselves, or see someone do something stupid on Youtube, because they don't use common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hand of Death *(1962)​
> *Good Science* - Anything that can benefit humans on Earth and/or improve our world.



Hm, I _do_ think there are issues with those three films.


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> I'm sure there would be some discussion if all the astronauts, engineers or physicists that saw it noticed something wrong with that scene. Given what is shown to be happening, I think the characters reacted realistically.



It did look good on the bog screen and in 3 D.


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> You're assuming that the mass is evenly distributed across the length of the arm. More likely the two ends are the heaviest parts, and the shuttle end was broken off. So if the majority of the arm's mass is left at the claw end, it is going to keep the CG near the astronaut.



Aren't all objects in Space regardless of size Weightless ?


----------



## psikeyhackr

BAYLOR said:


> Aren't all objects in Space regardless of size Weightless ?



The Earth is in space.  It is weightless.  The Sun is in space.  It is weightless.

I think the term "weightless" is a kind of a human scale evaluation.  Since all mass creates the phenomenon of gravity every atom in any object has weight.  Every atom in a wrench has weight in relation to the center of mass of the wrench.


----------



## Onyx

BAYLOR said:


> Aren't all objects in Space regardless of size Weightless ?


Mass and weight are different.


----------



## BAYLOR

*Interstellar   *I found it Interesting that they had  Advanced AI asa crew member.


----------



## BAYLOR

psikeyhackr said:


> The Earth is in space.  It is weightless.  The Sun is in space.  It is weightless.
> 
> I think the term "weightless" is a kind of a human scale evaluation.  Since all mass creates the phenomenon of gravity every atom in any object has weight.  Every atom in a wrench has weight in relation to the center of mass of the wrench.



Physics is not one of my strong points.


----------



## BigBadBob141

Your mass remains the same, but your weight depends on the strength of the gravity field you are in.
You weigh less on the Moon and Mars because they are smaller then the Earth, and therefore have less mass, so less gravity!
If you could stand on the surface of the Sun or Jupiter you would be a hell of a lot heavier , your weight would be greater but your mass remains the same!
Another common misconception is that vacuums suck, they don't, it's the other way round, it's the surrounding air which rushes in to fill the vacuum!
There was a flat earther on a you tube channel saying that the ISS is a fake , because they had a leek, and the station was not torn apart by the out side vacuum!
This is nonsense, the pressure difference is only one atmosphere , which I think is only fourteen pounds per square inch.
And the leek itself was only two millimeters across, it would have taken weeks to empty the station.
I think he'd been watching too many bad SF films!


----------



## psikeyhackr

BigBadBob141 said:


> Another common misconception is that vacuums suck, they don't, it's the other way round, it's the surrounding air which rushes in to fill the vacuum!



But that is all suck ever did.  People just suck at thinking about physics.  LOL


----------



## Ray Pullar

The ISS, which occupies a low orbit, is not in true vacuum.  There is a trace of Earth's outer atmosphere.  Skylab had an emergency tarp flung across her hull and this sheet flapped around in the breeze, as I recall from watching NASA footage.  P.S.  I agree that the leak in true vacuum would be slow for a small hole.


----------



## BigBadBob141

If people suck, as you say, at physics or maths, it's because they are taught poorly!
I think the ISS is about 250 miles above the earth, higher then Skylab maybe. 
At this height any trace of atmosphere would very, very slight, more or less a hard vaccum!
As I say, am not sure what the height of Skylab was, look it up on wiki, but am sure there was no breeze.
Skylab did eventually lose orbit because of atmospheric friction, but this was very slight, there would be no detectable breeze.
Just like there is no breeze on the moon, yet the spring loaded flag there appeared to flap!
The reason they both flapped was because of weightlessness in Skylabs case, and low gravity in the moon's case.
Any motion the so called tarp ( it was a reflective cover, they weren't out camping) had or the flag, takes a long time to die down because of no atmosphere, therefore no friction!


----------



## Ray Pullar

Skylab was 269-274.6 miles high, greater than ISS.  I saw the parasol shift about as a boy, wondered how with no air, found out later there was some.


----------



## Ray Pullar

ISS, and Skylab before it, orbit well within the thermosphere of Earth's atmosphere which lies between 50 and 620 miles above sea-level.


----------



## BAYLOR

BigBadBob141 said:


> Your mass remains the same, but your weight depends on the strength of the gravity field you are in.
> You weigh less on the Moon and Mars because they are smaller then the Earth, and therefore have less mass, so less gravity!
> If you could stand on the surface of the Sun or Jupiter you would be a hell of a lot heavier , your weight would be greater but your mass remains the same!
> Another common misconception is that vacuums suck, they don't, it's the other way round, it's the surrounding air which rushes in to fill the vacuum!
> There was a flat earther on a you tube channel saying that the ISS is a fake , because they had a leek, and the station was not torn apart by the out side vacuum!
> This is nonsense, the pressure difference is only one atmosphere , which I think is only fourteen pounds per square inch.
> And the leek itself was only two millimeters across, it would have taken weeks to empty the station.
> I think he'd been watching too many bad SF films!



Lt Commnader Data said something  to that effect in  an episode  of  Star Trek The Next Generation.


----------



## BigBadBob141

It has been discovered that the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon.
However at that distance the density is about 0.28 atoms per cubic centimeter!
Which is a bit on the thin side for breathing.
As I have been trying to point out, there may be faint traces of atmosphere at 250 miles above sea level, but it is so thin it may as well be regarded as a fairly hard vacum, there is no breeze, wind or anything remotely like that.
Eventually friction against these faint traces could bring the ISS out of orbit, but this would probably take a long time, and could be counter-acted by firing boosters, which I think the ISS does on a regular basis!
In fact it is very hard to say where our atmosphere ends and the solar atmosphere and winds begin!


----------



## Dave

A "flapping" would not be due to wind as, already pointed out, there isn't the density of gas to hit anything. It would be more likely a vibration with a very long wave frequency. With almost no friction, once started it would have nothing to slow it down. Like those executive desk toys with the swinging balls that used to be popular.

And yes, Weight is a Force so it equals Mass x Acceleration (where the acceleration is due to gravity.) F = ma or in this case F=mg. That is GCSE Physics. Or it used to be.


----------



## Vertigo

Yes there is almost no air friction but the material itself will resist movement and it would damp down quite quickly without any further agitation, which just happened to be provided by Skylab itself.
 
"flapping" of the sun shade was caused from the exhaust of the reaction 
control subsystem (RCS) thrusters of the Skylab 3 CSM.

Taken from this: S73-34619. The pictures are no longer there but the text is enough.


----------



## BAYLOR

The Star Trek Episode  *Obsession   * In this one they're  are dealing with entity that can not only change its molecular structure composition  but. can throw itself out time sync making it impossible to kill with any kind of weapon so ,phasers wouldn't hurt itand in theory even the antimatter explosion should have not have been able ot  kill it.   It was able  able ot go though the ships defector should like they we're not even there. So it should all have been able to phase through the ships hull but instead the creature entesr the ship though an open impulse engine vent. and it when ig got into Ensign Garovicks quarters   , they were able to reverse carbon pressure and suck it out though the vent.  Given the creature nature and compassion, this too doesn't make any sense. All also ,how is it that the ships air ducts and ventilation system are somehow connected to the  Starships impulse engine vents?


----------



## Vertigo

BAYLOR said:


> The Star Trek Episode  *Obsession   * In this one they're  are dealing with entity that can not only change its molecular structure composition  but. can throw itself out time sync making it impossible to kill with any kind of weapon so ,phasers wouldn't hurt itand in theory even the antimatter explosion should have not have been able ot  kill it.   It was able  able ot go though the ships defector should like they we're not even there. So it should all have been able to phase through the ships hull but instead the creature entesr the ship though an open impulse engine vent. and it when ig got into Ensign Garovicks quarters   , they were able to reverse carbon pressure and suck it out though the vent.  Given the creature nature and compassion, this too doesn't make any sense. All also ,how is it that the ships air ducts and ventilation system are somehow connected to the  Starships impulse engine vents?


I confess I long since stopped expecting Star Trek, original in particular, to be too concerned with physical consistency!

PS: You appear to have suffered rather at the hands of auto correct/insert in that post. Think I figured it all out though!


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> I confess I long since stopped expecting Star Trek, original in particular, to be too concerned with physical consistency!
> 
> PS: You appear to have suffered rather at the hands of auto correct/insert in that post. Think I figured it all out though!



Im coming to the belief  that the auto correct has a grudge against me.


----------



## BigBadBob141

Baylor I know just what you mean, I think mine is out to get me as well!


----------



## BAYLOR

BigBadBob141 said:


> Baylor I know just what you mean, I think mine is out to get me as well!



This  could be the beginning of the robot rebellion thats been predicted by numerous  Movies, television shows books , Graphic novels and games .   Oh no ! the autocorrector knows ive talked !


----------



## BAYLOR

And how much does  100 foot tall Gorilla like King Kong eat ?  Im thinking King Kong on Skull Island would very quickly exhaust any food supplies  there.


----------



## Vertigo

BAYLOR said:


> And how much does  100 foot tall Gorilla like King Kong eat ?  Im thinking King Kong on Skull Island would very quickly exhaust any food supplies  there.


Especially with all the dinosaurs living alongside him!


----------



## Dave

From extremely large beasts - to miniature people and incredible shrinking machines. They are literally incredible because they are impossible. it is pure fantasy.


----------



## Vertigo

Dave said:


> From extremely large beasts - to miniature people and incredible shrinking machines. They are literally incredible because they are impossible. it is pure fantasy.


Don't get me started on shrinking machines. If you're not going to lose complexity, ie. keep the same number of cells and therefore molecules, then you are going to have to somehow persuade atoms to get smaller. Yeah like that's going to happen. And if you do lose molecules/cells and so dodge the smaller atoms issue then good luck with any intelligence!


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> Don't get me started on shrinking machines. If you're not going to lose complexity, ie. keep the same number of cells and therefore molecules, then you are going to have to somehow persuade atoms to get smaller. Yeah like that's going to happen. And if you do lose molecules/cells and so dodge the smaller atoms issue then good luck with any intelligence!



Which brings to mind  the movie *Fantastic Voyage.*


----------



## Vertigo

BAYLOR said:


> Which brings to mind  the movie *Fantastic Voyage.*


We can't get into that one; the list would be far too long!


----------



## Venusian Broon

Vertigo said:


> Don't get me started on shrinking machines. If you're not going to lose complexity, ie. keep the same number of cells and therefore molecules, then you are going to have to somehow persuade atoms to get smaller. Yeah like that's going to happen. And if you do lose molecules/cells and so dodge the smaller atoms issue then good luck with any intelligence!


Not if the reality or universe that the drama is set is in some kind of simulation, a simulation that allows such scaling.   

Hey it could be that our universe is such a simulation, just that the size factor is a fixed constant in the code...


----------



## Dave

Venusian Broon said:


> it could be that our universe is such a simulation, just that the size factor is a fixed constant in the code...



But surely you can't have both sizes existing together in the same universe? If based upon fixed constants, then the constants are fixed even if they are different. You still can't have men the size of another man's thumbnail existing together. And while this sounds like a philosophical question, it is rather a question of science - the physical size and shape of atoms and molecules determines their chemistry - their solubility, their diffusion rates, and the strength of materials -which all have a bearing on their biology and biochemistry. So, a man from one universe could not survive if he was transplanted into another universe i.e. Land of the Giants.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Dave said:


> But surely you can't have both sizes existing together in the same universe? If based upon fixed constants, then the constants are fixed even if they are different. You still can't have men the size of another man's thumbnail existing together. And while this sounds like a philosophical question, it is rather a question of science - the physical size and shape of atoms and molecules determines their chemistry - their solubility, their diffusion rates, and the strength of materials -which all have a bearing on their biology and biochemistry. So, a man from one universe could not survive if he was transplanted into another universe i.e. Land of the Giants.


Hey, I can alter my shape and size in Skyrim. And still interact.   

Whose to say all this talk about atoms is purely just macguffin hardcoded into our forms so that we can't see the real reality.

(P.s. I'm not really being serious, just thinking of an alternative reality where such shrinkage might be possible! )


----------



## BAYLOR

Vertigo said:


> We can't get into that one; the list would be far too long!



Okay Vertigo , fair enough .

I still love that movie,   also seem to recall a certain DS9 epside where a runabout got miniaturized.   

By the way, any thoughts on *The Neptune Factor* and its secret ocean with giant fishy's and coral !


----------



## Dave

Venusian Broon said:


> Hey, I can alter my shape and size in Skyrim. And still interact.
> 
> Whose to say all this talk about atoms is purely just macguffin hardcoded into our forms so that we can't see the real reality.
> 
> (P.s. I'm not really being serious, just thinking of an alternative reality where such shrinkage might be possible! )


I thought you were pitching for the fourth instalment of The Matrix.


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> I thought you were pitching for the fourth instalment of The Matrix.



I can't believe they are doing another Matrix film.  Please , no more .


----------



## Dave

I've not seen _The Neptune Factor. _However, I'd very much doubt there are any more large sea creatures we haven't yet discovered. Nor any underwater civilisations such as in _Aquaman_ or _Stingray_.  And men and mermaids having children? Which I guess leads on to the other thing never discussed but very common, especially in _Star Trek - _men and Vulcans, men and Klingons, men and Betazoids, men and just about anything that moves...


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> I've not seen _The Neptune Factor. _However, I'd very much doubt there are any more large sea creatures we haven't yet discovered. Nor any underwater civilisations such as in _Aquaman_ or _Stingray_.  And men and mermaids having children? Which I guess leads on to the other thing never discussed but very common, especially in _Star Trek - _men and Vulcans, men and Klingons, men and Betazoids, men and just about anything that moves...



A few years ago, they did pseudo documentary show, in which the populated that one brach of the hominids that gave rise to mankind went into the  to  sea and evolved into  a race of Merfolk.


----------



## BAYLOR

Dave said:


> I've not seen _The Neptune Factor. _However, I'd very much doubt there are any more large sea creatures we haven't yet discovered. Nor any underwater civilisations such as in _Aquaman_ or _Stingray_.  And men and mermaids having children? Which I guess leads on to the other thing never discussed but very common, especially in _Star Trek - _men and Vulcans, men and Klingons, men and Betazoids, men and just about anything that moves...



It's a  pretty silly film with very cheesy special effects but,  it does have entertainment value.


----------



## BAYLOR

*When Words Collide *  The survivors from planet Earth end up on the smaller od the two world, the One took earths placentae solar system . Its become inhabitable again. The planet called Bronson Beta in the Novel and Zyra in the movie, is earth-like but, it has no moon. That a problem because a moon keeps our axis stable. Without a moon the climate and season become unpredictable and unstable  which would make life as we know it impossible and the planet uninhabitable.   My guess is that when the original book and its sequel *After World Collide* were written in the 1930's ,this wasn't known to science and probably not  in 1951 when the book was made into a film.


----------



## Foxbat

I recall Bladerunner 2049 made me laugh. There's a scene in a cockpit where an alarm is raised by the presence of tritum in the atmosphere. Tritium is a low energy soft beta emitter and although it tends to settle in the gastro-intestinal tract and  has a biologoical half life of just over ten days (radiological half life of just over ten years). It can be quickly flushed out of a person's system simply by drinking copious amounts of fluid.  Although it can be an internal hazard, because of its low energy betas,  is probably one of the least harmful radio-isotopes and even can occur naturally. It was a very  bad choice when there are so many other much more harmful isotopes that could have been used. Why don't these writers do their research? They could easily find all this in a few seconds if they googled it.


----------



## -K2-

@Foxbat ;

If you mean this:






That was in Dr. Badger's shop where he scanned the wooden horse and from that determined it had come from Las Vegas. He was so unconcerned by it that he (Dr. Badger) raised it to his nose and stated that it 'smelled like old dirt, but was not old' or something to that effect.

K2


----------



## StilLearning

Venusian Broon said:


> Hey, I can alter my shape and size in Skyrim. And still interact.
> 
> Whose to say all this talk about atoms is purely just macguffin hardcoded into our forms so that we can't see the real reality.
> 
> (P.s. I'm not really being serious, just thinking of an alternative reality where such shrinkage might be possible! )


I think it would still need to obey its own internal logic. For example: In skyrim there's no mechanism for breathing. If there was and you shrank all the O2 molecules would be too big for your longs (past a certain point) and you'd suffocate. So it's not a case of 'what does the sim specifically prohibit' but more 'what does the sim specifically include a mechanism to allow'?


----------



## Venusian Broon

StilLearning said:


> I think it would still need to obey its own internal logic. For example: In skyrim there's no mechanism for breathing. If there was and you shrank all the O2 molecules would be too big for your longs (past a certain point) and you'd suffocate. So it's not a case of 'what does the sim specifically prohibit' but more 'what does the sim specifically include a mechanism to allow'?



Erm... yeah, the reason you can resize in Skyrim is because of the internal logic of the program that runs it.

Which was my (flippant? Covered in emojis? Not too serious?) point. 

I mischievously suggested that perhaps we really have completely misunderstood the real 'internal logic' of our universe and all sorts of wondrous things may be possible in future that seem impossible today.

However, as I have inflicted on the world a very dull Physics PhD thesis, I am well aware that empirical evidence is king.


----------



## StilLearning

Venusian Broon said:


> Erm... yeah, the reason you can resize in Skyrim is because of the internal logic of the program that runs it.
> 
> Which was my (flippant? Covered in emojis? Not too serious?) point.
> 
> I mischievously suggested that perhaps we really have completely misunderstood the real 'internal logic' of our universe and all sorts of wondrous things may be possible in future that seem impossible today.
> 
> However, as I have inflicted on the world a very dull Physics PhD thesis, I am well aware that empirical evidence is king.



Really? How do you resize yourself in Skyrim?! Is there a mod for it? My point is that to do that there's presumably some mechanism that either allows you to, or allows you adjust the code to allow you to. OK, I thought you were more asking 'if we do live in a simulation can we do apparently impossible things if we understand the programming and logic well enough'. But re our universe: Even if we've misunderstood the internal logic (and we might have IMHO) better grasping it won't let us break any big rules unless we can access a mechanism to write code, so to speak. Better understanding might lead us to new loopholes, like there're ways to get certain items in skyrim that are meant to be mutually exclusive by exploiting bugs in the game. But you can't start the game as a dragon, or replace every tree with a portal to Oblivion, or drop that bloody ice troll with one shot, not unless you can get at the code and do a heavy duty rewrite. 

Sorry, I tend to be a bit literal when communicating in text... but I do really find the question interesting, meant flippantly orin earnest!


----------



## Venusian Broon

StilLearning said:


> Really? How do you resize yourself in Skyrim?!


Well, it's pretty easy to scale every character that you look at, to make them huge. Or tiny if that's your thing. How to do it to your first person character may be technically challenging, neigh impossible, for the engine.

But then that's making you either tiny, or very large compared to everything else innit!


----------



## StilLearning

I stand corrected. I can in fact do that in our universe, although my wife does get annoyed when I alternately crawl across the floor and stiltwalk at gatherings.


----------

