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

[JunkMonkey]

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]

'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]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

'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.

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]

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

It works for plants.

 

[RX-79G]

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]

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]

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.